NASA's $12.48M contract for specialized engineering and avionics software services awarded to Teledyne Brown Engineering
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $12,480,639 ($12.5M)
Contractor: Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2007-12-29
End Date: 2013-11-30
Contract Duration: 2,163 days
Daily Burn Rate: $5.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS
Sector: Other
Official Description: SPEC ENG/CXP SOFTWARE AVIONICS.
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35812
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $12.5 million to TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING, INC. for work described as: SPEC ENG/CXP SOFTWARE AVIONICS. Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in specialized engineering and avionics software. 2. The full and open competition suggests a robust market for these services. 3. The contract duration of over 5 years indicates a long-term need for these capabilities. 4. Awarded as a delivery order, suggesting it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. 5. The Time and Materials pricing structure warrants scrutiny for cost control and efficiency. 6. Geographic concentration in Alabama may indicate a specific regional capability or facility focus.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this specific engineering and avionics software contract is challenging without more granular data on the scope of services. However, the total award of $12.48 million over approximately 5.5 years suggests an average annual spend of roughly $2.27 million. This figure needs to be compared against similar specialized engineering services contracts within NASA and other aerospace agencies to determine if it represents a competitive price point. The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing model, while flexible, can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed diligently, making oversight crucial for ensuring value for money.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The number of bidders is not specified, but this procurement method generally fosters a competitive environment, which should theoretically lead to better pricing and service quality. The agency sought proposals from a broad range of qualified contractors, suggesting that the market for these specialized engineering and avionics software services is sufficiently developed to support multiple capable providers.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it maximizes the potential for cost savings through competitive bidding and encourages innovation among a wider pool of contractors.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA's engineering and research divisions requiring specialized avionics software and related engineering support. Services delivered likely include design, development, testing, and integration of avionics systems and software. The contract's geographic impact is concentrated in Alabama, where Teledyne Brown Engineering is located. Workforce implications include employment for engineers, software developers, and technical specialists in the aerospace sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored and managed.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's efficiency and effectiveness.
- The duration of the contract (over 5 years) necessitates ongoing vigilance to ensure continued value and alignment with evolving technological needs.
- Limited information on the specific deliverables makes it hard to gauge the true scope and complexity of the work performed.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive marketplace and potential for good value.
- The contractor, Teledyne Brown Engineering, likely possesses specialized expertise required for complex avionics software and engineering.
- The contract's longevity indicates a sustained need and potentially a successful, ongoing relationship with the contractor.
- The contract is a delivery order, implying it fits within a broader strategic procurement framework, potentially offering efficiencies.
Sector Analysis
The aerospace engineering and avionics software sector is characterized by high technical barriers to entry, stringent quality requirements, and significant government investment. This contract falls within the broader engineering services and software development market, which is a critical component of the defense and civilian space programs. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other NASA or DoD contracts for similar specialized software development and engineering support, often measured by cost per labor hour or project milestone.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a result, small businesses were likely not the primary focus of this specific award. However, depending on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate indirectly. Without details on subcontracting goals or achievements, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract remains unclear.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Specific oversight mechanisms would likely include contract officers, technical monitors, and potentially program managers responsible for ensuring deliverables meet specifications and timelines. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, but detailed performance reports and audits are typically internal or available through specific Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Avionics Systems Development
- Software Engineering Services
- Space Exploration Technology Development
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to T&M pricing.
- Need for rigorous oversight to ensure value for money.
- Complexity of specialized avionics software requires deep technical expertise.
- Long contract duration necessitates continuous performance monitoring.
Tags
engineering-services, avionics-software, nasa, teledyne-brown-engineering, delivery-order, time-and-materials, full-and-open-competition, alabama, aerospace, software-development
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $12.5 million to TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING, INC.. SPEC ENG/CXP SOFTWARE AVIONICS.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $12.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-12-29. End: 2013-11-30.
What is Teledyne Brown Engineering's track record with NASA on similar avionics and engineering contracts?
Teledyne Brown Engineering has a history of working with NASA and other government agencies on complex engineering and technical services. Analyzing their past performance on contracts with similar scope, duration, and technical requirements is crucial. This includes reviewing past performance evaluations, any documented issues or successes, and their ability to meet cost, schedule, and performance targets. A review of their contract history with NASA would reveal their experience in areas like systems engineering, software development, and integration, particularly within the aerospace domain. Understanding their historical relationship with NASA can provide insights into their reliability and capability for fulfilling the requirements of this specific contract.
How does the $12.48 million total value compare to similar specialized engineering and avionics software contracts within NASA?
Comparing the $12.48 million total award value requires identifying comparable contracts within NASA or other agencies (like the DoD) that procured similar specialized engineering and avionics software services. Key comparison points include the contract duration (approximately 5.5 years), the specific technical services rendered, and the complexity of the systems involved. If this contract represents a significant portion of NASA's spending in this niche area, or if it's substantially higher or lower than comparable awards, it could indicate issues with pricing, scope definition, or market competition. Benchmarking against industry standards and other government procurements is essential for assessing value for money.
What are the primary risks associated with the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure for this contract?
The primary risk associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for direct labor hours at specified rates and for the actual cost of materials. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M offers less incentive for the contractor to control costs efficiently. For NASA, this means diligent oversight is required to monitor labor hours, ensure the necessity of all work performed, and validate material costs. Without strong controls and clear task definitions, the total cost can escalate beyond initial expectations, potentially leading to a poor value for taxpayers. Effective management of T&M contracts relies heavily on detailed work breakdown structures and vigilant progress tracking.
How effective has NASA been in managing long-term engineering services contracts like this one to ensure ongoing program effectiveness?
NASA's effectiveness in managing long-term engineering services contracts can vary. Success often hinges on robust contract management practices, including clear performance metrics, regular progress reviews, and proactive risk mitigation. For contracts spanning several years, ensuring that the services remain aligned with evolving technological needs and program objectives is critical. NASA employs various oversight mechanisms, such as technical representatives and contract officers, to monitor performance and ensure accountability. However, the inherent complexity of aerospace engineering and software development can present challenges in maintaining optimal program effectiveness over extended periods, necessitating adaptive management strategies and continuous evaluation.
What are the historical spending patterns for specialized engineering and avionics software services at NASA over the last 5-10 years?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for specialized engineering and avionics software services at NASA over the past 5-10 years would reveal trends in investment in these critical areas. This involves examining aggregate spending data, identifying major contract vehicles (like IDIQs), and noting significant shifts in technology focus or program priorities. Understanding these patterns can help contextualize the $12.48 million award, indicating whether it represents a typical level of investment or a notable increase/decrease. Such analysis can also highlight key contractors, dominant service areas, and the overall market dynamics within NASA's procurement landscape for these specialized services.
What specific avionics software capabilities are being developed or supported under this contract?
The contract description 'SPEC ENG/CXP SOFTWARE AVIONICS' suggests the work involves specialized engineering and potentially 'CXP' (which could refer to a specific system, software suite, or internal NASA designation) related to avionics software. To understand the specific capabilities, one would need to examine the detailed Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS) associated with this delivery order. This document would outline the precise nature of the engineering services, the type of avionics software involved (e.g., flight control, navigation, communication, mission systems), and the expected deliverables. Without access to the SOW/PWS, the exact technical scope remains generalized, making it difficult to assess the criticality or complexity of the software being developed or supported.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (UEI: 112358432)
Address: 300 SPARKMAN DRIVE, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35805
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $13,699,311
Exercised Options: $13,699,311
Current Obligation: $12,480,639
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNM06AA10Z
IDV Type: BPA
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-12-29
Current End Date: 2013-11-30
Potential End Date: 2013-11-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2020-01-13
More Contracts from Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.
- Systems Development&operations Support a Primary Mission of the Marshall Space Flight Center (msfc) IS to Support Nasa's Human Exploration and Development of Space (heds) Enterprise and the Office of Biological and Physical Research (obpr) Enterprise WHO ARE Working Together to Facilitate Long-Term Exploration of Space. Msfc Serves AS Nasa's Lead Center for the Materials Science and Biotechnology Disciplines and Serves Other Customers and Sponsors Within the Agency. the Purposes of This Contract ARE to Further the Science Goals of the Agency by 1) Developing, Operating and Maintaining Facilities and Payloads on the International Space Station (ISS) and Other Vehicles and Carriers, 2) Providing Science, Technical and Engineering Support to Investigators, and 3) Providing Management and Administrative Support to Msad. the Contractor Shall Provide the Necessary Management, Personnel, and Equipment/Supplies (NOT Otherwise Provided by the Government) Required to Perform the Engineering, Science and Technical Tasks Broadly Defined in This Statement of Work (SOW) and More Specifically Described in the Task/Delivery Order (order) and Technical Directives Issued by the Government. the Contractor Shall Provide the Planning, Coordination, Technical Direction, and Surveillance of the Activities Necessary to Assure Disciplined Performance of Work and Timely Application of Resources for the Accomplishment of ALL Orders Issued Under the Contract Approved by Msad. the Contractor Shall Establish, Implement, and Maintain a Financial Reporting System in Accordance With the Nasa FAR Supplement (NFS) 1852.242-73 and Nasa Procedures and Guidelines (NPG) 9501.2D. the Contractor Shall Provide the Overall Management Effort Required to Integrate Technical and Programmatic Functions Necessary for Achievement of the Objectives of the Contract. the Contractor Shall Develop, Submit, and Maintain Detailed Master Schedules Based on a Logic Driven Network That Supports Applicable Msad Project and ISS Program Managed Milestones. the Contractor Shall BE Responsible for Procurement Functions: the Contractor Shall Create, Maintain and Submit in the Format Specified by Msad, Miscellaneous Graphics, Presentations and Reports Supporting the Payloads and the Research Program, and the Major Msad Program Activities and Milestones. the Contractor Shall Define, Design, Develop, Fabricate, Assemble, Test, Deliver, Integrate and Operate Microgravity Science Payloads and Facilities. the Contractor Shall Define the Resources, Structure, Approach, and Processes Required to Complete the Final Design, Development, Fabrication, Assembly, Test, Integration, Operation, Maintenance, Support, and Retirement of the Required Hardware, Software, and Associated Infrastructure. the Contractor Shall Support or Conduct Technical Reviews Appropriate for Individual Payload Development and to Meet the Requirements of the Order — $397.2M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Mission Operations and Integration (MO&I) Contract. This Contract Involves Operations Support for ALL Phases of Flight Including Mission Preparation, Crew and Flight Controller Training, and Real-Time Operations Requirements for Spaceflight Operations Support. the Core Services Portion of the Contract Establishes Requirements for Payload Operations in Support of the International Space Station (ISS) Program, While Task Orders Issued Under the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (idiq) Component Will Provide the Capability to ADD Operations Support for Other Program or Project Requirements — $371.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Marshall Operations Systems, Services, and Integration II (mossi II) — $253.6M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Production of FMS Boats U1, U2, and U3 — $237.7M (Department of Defense)
- Launch Vehicle/Stages Adapter — $205.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
View all Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. federal contracts →
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →