NASA's $171.6M Engineering Services Contract with Victory Solutions, LLC Awarded via Full and Open Competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $171,621,390 ($171.6M)
Contractor: Victory Solutions, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2013-10-01
End Date: 2025-12-31
Contract Duration: 4,474 days
Daily Burn Rate: $38.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: IT
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF MARSHALL INTEGRATED PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES (MIPSS) CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT AND DATA MANAGEMENT (CMDM) TASK ORDER
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35812
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $171.6 million to VICTORY SOLUTIONS, LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF MARSHALL INTEGRATED PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES (MIPSS) CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT AND DATA MANAGEMENT (CMDM) TASK ORDER Key points: 1. Contract value of $171.6 million over its period of performance. 2. Awarded to Victory Solutions, LLC, a single contractor. 3. Procured through a full and open competition process. 4. Task order under a broader BPA Call structure. 5. Firm Fixed Price contract type suggests defined scope and cost certainty. 6. Long duration of 4474 days (approx. 12.2 years) indicates a sustained need. 7. Focus on Configuration Management and Data Management (CMDM) within engineering services. 8. Contract awarded to a single entity, raising questions about potential for future sole-sourcing if not managed carefully.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's total value of $171.6 million over approximately 12 years suggests a significant investment in engineering support services. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale engineering support contracts is challenging without more specific service details. The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) nature is generally positive for cost control, but the long duration could mask potential inefficiencies if not actively managed. Without specific performance metrics or comparisons to industry benchmarks for similar services, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded through a full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. The fact that it is a BPA Call suggests it was part of a larger, pre-competed agreement, with this specific task order being competed among eligible parties. The number of bidders (5 is indicated in the raw data, though not explicitly in the schema fields) is a positive sign for price discovery and ensuring a competitive outcome.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to lower prices and better service quality. This approach maximizes the pool of potential offerors, increasing the likelihood of obtaining the best value for government funds.
Public Impact
Benefits NASA's engineering and program support functions, ensuring critical data and configuration management. Supports the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's mission objectives through specialized engineering services. Primarily impacts NASA personnel and contractors involved in program management and engineering. Geographic impact is likely concentrated around NASA facilities, though remote work possibilities exist. Workforce implications include specialized engineering and IT support roles.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration (over 12 years) could lead to complacency or reduced agility if not actively managed.
- Reliance on a single contractor for this critical function may present risks if performance degrades or the contractor faces financial instability.
- Potential for scope creep over such an extended period, which could increase costs beyond initial projections if not rigorously controlled.
Positive Signals
- Awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that likely secured favorable terms.
- Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty and incentivizes contractor efficiency.
- The task order structure under a BPA Call implies a pre-vetted framework, potentially streamlining execution.
- The sustained nature of the contract indicates a consistent and valued service delivery by the contractor.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically focusing on IT-adjacent functions like configuration and data management. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government and large enterprise needs for complex project support. NASA's spending in this area is consistent with its mission-critical operations, requiring robust systems for managing vast amounts of technical data and project configurations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large federal agencies procuring similar IT and engineering support services.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb fields are false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this specific contract. Therefore, direct benefits to small businesses through set-asides are unlikely. However, the prime contractor, Victory Solutions, LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors, depending on the scope and nature of the services required. An analysis of subcontracting plans would be necessary to determine the extent of small business involvement.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contracting officers and program managers. NASA's Inspector General (IG) office would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations into potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are typically internal. Accountability measures are embedded in the Firm Fixed Price contract terms and performance expectations.
Related Government Programs
- NASA IT Support Services
- Federal Engineering Services Contracts
- Configuration Management Services
- Data Management Solutions
- BPA Call Contracts
- Large Scale IT Service Contracts
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration
- Single awardee for critical function
- Potential for scope creep
- Need for continuous performance monitoring
Tags
engineering-services, nasa, information-technology, configuration-management, data-management, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, bpa-call, large-contract, alabama, federal-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $171.6 million to VICTORY SOLUTIONS, LLC. IGF::OT::IGF MARSHALL INTEGRATED PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES (MIPSS) CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT AND DATA MANAGEMENT (CMDM) TASK ORDER
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is VICTORY SOLUTIONS, LLC.
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 $171.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2013-10-01. End: 2025-12-31.
What is the track record of Victory Solutions, LLC with NASA and other federal agencies?
Victory Solutions, LLC has a history of performing contracts with federal agencies, including NASA. Analyzing their past performance, particularly on similar engineering, IT, or data management contracts, is crucial. This includes reviewing past performance evaluations, any documented issues or disputes, and their overall success rate in meeting contract requirements. A strong track record suggests a lower risk of performance failure, while a history of issues may indicate potential future challenges. Specific details on their prior NASA engagements would provide the most relevant context for assessing their capability to fulfill this current $171.6 million contract effectively over its extended duration.
How does the $171.6 million value compare to similar engineering services contracts at NASA or other agencies?
The $171.6 million contract value over approximately 12 years represents a substantial investment. To benchmark its value, it should be compared to other large-scale engineering support, configuration management, and data management contracts awarded by NASA or agencies like the Department of Defense or GSA. Factors such as the scope of services, duration, and specific deliverables are critical for a fair comparison. If similar contracts for comparable services are significantly lower in value, it might suggest this contract is priced higher than the market average. Conversely, if it aligns with or is lower than comparable contracts, it could indicate good value, especially given the full and open competition.
What are the primary risks associated with a Firm Fixed Price contract of this duration?
The primary risks with a long-duration Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract like this one (over 12 years) revolve around potential scope creep and contractor performance degradation. While FFP provides cost certainty upfront, the extended timeline increases the possibility that the defined scope may become outdated or insufficient for evolving needs. If NASA requires significant changes, contract modifications could lead to cost increases, negating some FFP benefits. Furthermore, over such a long period, the contractor's performance could decline due to factors like staff turnover, loss of institutional knowledge, or shifting business priorities. Robust oversight and change management processes are essential to mitigate these risks and ensure continued value.
How effective is the 'full and open competition' strategy for ensuring optimal pricing and service quality in this context?
The 'full and open competition' strategy is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring optimal pricing and service quality for large federal contracts. By allowing all responsible sources to submit bids, it maximizes the competitive landscape, driving down prices and encouraging innovation. For this $171.6 million NASA contract, this approach likely resulted in multiple proposals, allowing NASA to select the offer that provided the best combination of technical merit and cost. The success of this strategy hinges on a well-defined Statement of Work (SOW) and clear evaluation criteria, ensuring that the 'best value' is truly achieved, not just the lowest price.
What are the implications of this contract being a task order under a BPA Call?
This contract being a task order under a BPA Call (Blanket Purchase Agreement Call) implies that a broader master agreement was previously established through competition. This BPA likely pre-qualified vendors and established general terms and conditions. The specific task order then competed among those BPA holders. This structure can streamline the procurement process for specific needs that fall under the BPA's umbrella, potentially leading to faster award times and reduced administrative burden compared to a standalone solicitation. It suggests a recognized, ongoing need for these types of services within NASA.
How does the long duration (4474 days) impact the assessment of contractor performance and value?
The exceptionally long duration of 4474 days (over 12 years) significantly complicates the assessment of contractor performance and value. While it indicates a sustained need and potentially stable service delivery, it also introduces risks. Performance can fluctuate over such a long period due to personnel changes, evolving technology, and shifts in program priorities. Assessing value requires continuous monitoring and re-evaluation, as initial assumptions about efficiency and cost-effectiveness may not hold true throughout the contract's life. NASA must implement robust performance management and potentially periodic reviews to ensure the contractor continues to deliver optimal value and adapt to changing requirements.
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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 560 DISCOVERY DR NW, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35806
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $171,621,390
Exercised Options: $171,621,390
Current Obligation: $171,621,390
Actual Outlays: $104,685,279
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 13
Total Subaward Amount: $57,034,014
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNM13AA09Z
IDV Type: BPA
Timeline
Start Date: 2013-10-01
Current End Date: 2025-12-31
Potential End Date: 2025-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-12-22
More Contracts from Victory Solutions, LLC
- Clin 0001 Labor — $21.5M (Department of Defense)
- Configuration and Data Management (CDM) - Call Order 02: Msfc SLS Requirements for CDM — $3.9M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Call Order 01 - Msfc Multi-Mission Requirements for CDM — $2.2M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
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 →