NASA's $29.7M Hardware Assurance Testing contract awarded to Aerojet Rocketdyne for R&D support
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $29,663,436 ($29.7M)
Contractor: Aerojet Rocketdyne of DE, Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2007-04-01
End Date: 2011-04-30
Contract Duration: 1,490 days
Daily Burn Rate: $19.9K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: SUPPORT FOR TRANSITITON OF OPERATIONS UNDER THE HARDWARE ASSURANCE TESTING (HAT) CONTRACT NASA.
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $29.7 million to AEROJET ROCKETDYNE OF DE, INC for work described as: SUPPORT FOR TRANSITITON OF OPERATIONS UNDER THE HARDWARE ASSURANCE TESTING (HAT) CONTRACT NASA. Key points: 1. Contract supports critical hardware assurance testing for NASA's operational transitions. 2. Awarded as a sole-source contract, limiting competitive price discovery. 3. Performance period spanned over four years, indicating a substantial project duration. 4. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee, incentivizes performance but can lead to higher costs. 5. Research and Development sector focus highlights investment in advanced technological capabilities. 6. Small business participation was not a stated requirement for this contract. 7. Oversight is likely managed by NASA's internal program and contracting offices.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging due to its sole-source nature and specialized R&D focus. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure, while common for complex R&D, can sometimes result in costs exceeding fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly. Without comparable sole-source R&D contracts for similar hardware assurance testing, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the duration and scope suggest a significant investment in ensuring the reliability of NASA's hardware.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or is the only responsible source capable of meeting the government's needs. The lack of competition means that NASA did not benefit from the price reductions and innovation that can arise from a competitive bidding process.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is less pressure on the contractor to offer the most competitive pricing.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is NASA, which receives essential support for ensuring the reliability and safety of its hardware. Services delivered include critical testing and analysis to facilitate the transition of operations. The geographic impact is primarily within NASA's research and development facilities, likely concentrated in areas with significant aerospace engineering presence. Workforce implications include specialized engineers and technicians involved in hardware assurance and testing.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially impacting cost-effectiveness.
- Cost Plus Award Fee contract type can lead to cost overruns if not carefully managed.
- Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification process.
- Limited data available on specific performance metrics and award fee payouts.
Positive Signals
- Supports critical NASA missions by ensuring hardware reliability.
- Aerojet Rocketdyne's established expertise in aerospace likely ensures high-quality technical execution.
- Long-term operational support indicates a sustained need and successful partnership.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. This sector is characterized by innovation, long development cycles, and often high costs associated with testing and validation. NASA's spending in this area is crucial for advancing space exploration and aeronautics technology. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the specialized nature of hardware assurance testing, but R&D contracts often represent a significant portion of agency budgets dedicated to future capabilities.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, nor is there information indicating significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The award to a large, established contractor like Aerojet Rocketdyne suggests that the primary focus was on specialized capabilities rather than fostering small business participation. This contract's structure does not directly contribute to the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers responsible for the Hardware Assurance Testing (HAT) program. Accountability measures would be tied to the Cost Plus Award Fee structure, where performance against defined criteria could trigger award fees. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, with detailed justifications typically not made public. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Hardware Testing and Validation
- Space Technology Development
- Operational Transition Support
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award may limit cost savings.
- CPAF structure requires careful oversight to manage costs.
- Limited public information on specific performance outcomes.
Tags
research-and-development, nasa, aerojet-rocketdyne, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, hardware-assurance-testing, mississippi, operational-transition, aerospace, engineering-services
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $29.7 million to AEROJET ROCKETDYNE OF DE, INC. SUPPORT FOR TRANSITITON OF OPERATIONS UNDER THE HARDWARE ASSURANCE TESTING (HAT) CONTRACT NASA.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is AEROJET ROCKETDYNE OF DE, 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 $29.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-04-01. End: 2011-04-30.
What specific hardware was tested under this contract, and what was the criticality of its transition to operations?
The data provided indicates the contract supported 'TRANSITITON OF OPERATIONS UNDER THE HARDWARE ASSURANCE TESTING (HAT) CONTRACT NASA.' While the specific hardware is not detailed, the 'Hardware Assurance Testing' designation implies components or systems critical to the reliable functioning of NASA's operational assets. This could range from propulsion systems, life support, communication equipment, or structural components for spacecraft, launch vehicles, or ground support systems. The criticality of its transition to operations suggests these were components essential for moving a project from a development or testing phase into active mission deployment or service, where failure could have significant consequences for mission success, safety, or cost.
How did the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure influence the final cost and performance of the contract?
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure involves the government reimbursing the contractor for allowable costs plus a base fee, plus an award fee determined by the government based on performance against specific criteria. For this contract, CPAF likely incentivized Aerojet Rocketdyne to meet or exceed performance targets related to the hardware assurance testing. The 'award' portion means that higher performance could lead to a greater total payment. However, CPAF contracts can be susceptible to cost growth if the base fee is not well-defined or if the award criteria are ambiguous, potentially leading to higher overall costs than a fixed-price contract. Without access to the specific award fee criteria and the final performance evaluations, it's difficult to definitively state how much the award fee component impacted the final cost or if it successfully drove superior performance.
What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the award fee for Aerojet Rocketdyne?
The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to determine the award fee for Aerojet Rocketdyne under this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract are not publicly detailed in the provided data. Typically, for hardware assurance testing contracts, KPIs would focus on aspects such as the accuracy and thoroughness of testing procedures, the timely identification of hardware flaws or potential failure points, the quality and clarity of test reports, adherence to schedules, and the effectiveness of proposed solutions or recommendations for mitigating identified risks. The government's contracting officer would have evaluated the contractor's performance against these pre-defined metrics to determine the amount of award fee earned, aiming to incentivize high-quality execution and successful operational transitions.
Given the sole-source nature, what justification did NASA provide for not competing this requirement?
The provided data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' indicating a sole-source award. While the specific justification is not included, common reasons for sole-source procurements by agencies like NASA include: 1) Unique capabilities: The contractor possesses specialized knowledge, technology, or facilities essential for the work that no other source can provide. 2) Urgency: A critical need exists that cannot be met through the competitive process in the required timeframe. 3) Follow-on work: The requirement is a logical follow-on to a previous contract where competition was previously held, and it's deemed most efficient to continue with the incumbent. 4) Industrial mobilization: Ensuring the availability of critical industrial resources. For a contract supporting hardware assurance testing for operational transitions, NASA likely cited unique technical expertise or proprietary data held by Aerojet Rocketdyne as the primary justification for the sole-source award.
How does this contract's spending compare to other R&D contracts within NASA or the broader federal government?
The $29.7 million total value for this contract, spanning approximately four years (April 2007 - April 2011), places it as a moderately sized R&D contract within the federal government. NASA's R&D budget often includes much larger prime contracts for major programs (e.g., space exploration vehicles, satellite development) that can run into hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. However, numerous smaller, specialized R&D contracts like this one are essential for specific testing, analysis, and component development. Compared to the broader federal government, $29.7 million is a significant sum, but it's not exceptionally large within the context of major defense or energy R&D initiatives. Its value is derived from its specific technical contribution to NASA's operational readiness rather than its sheer dollar amount.
What is Aerojet Rocketdyne's track record with NASA, particularly on similar R&D or testing contracts?
Aerojet Rocketdyne (and its predecessor companies) has a long and established history of working with NASA and the Department of Defense on various aerospace and propulsion-related projects. They are a major contractor for rocket engines and related technologies. While specific details on their track record for *this particular* Hardware Assurance Testing contract are limited to the award data, their general profile suggests significant experience in complex engineering, testing, and development. NASA typically awards contracts to companies with proven capabilities, especially for critical R&D and assurance testing where reliability is paramount. Their continued engagement with NASA on such projects implies a generally positive performance history and technical competence in areas relevant to spaceflight hardware.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
Product/Service Code: QUALITY CONTROL, TEST, INSPECTION › EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TESTING
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 001316330)
Address: 6633 CANOGA AVE, CANOGA PARK, CA, 91303
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $29,734,184
Exercised Options: $29,734,184
Current Obligation: $29,663,436
Actual Outlays: $180,510
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNS07AA20C
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-04-01
Current End Date: 2011-04-30
Potential End Date: 2011-04-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-09-09
More Contracts from Aerojet Rocketdyne of DE, Inc
- RS-25 Production Restart to BE Undertaken by the Contractor in Support of Providing SIX RS-25 Engines Modified AS Necessary for the Technical Requirements Under the Space Launch System, Recertification of Production, Improvements in Manufacturing, and Certification for Flight Program — $3.2B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Space Shuttle ENG Support for Flight SCH of 30 FLI Flights Extending From 1/1/02 Thru 12/31/06 — $2.3B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Letter Contract to Initiate Ddt&e and Long Lead Purchases — $2.1B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Hardware Assurance Propulsion Testing, Test Support Services of Space Shuttle Main Engine Ssme — $116.0M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Design, Development, Production, and System Integration of a Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (mmrtg) — $95.8M (Department of Energy)
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 →