NASA's $133M contract for Stennis Space Center operations awarded to Lockheed Martin Services, LLC
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $133,402,388 ($133.4M)
Contractor: Lockheed Martin Services, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2011-04-01
End Date: 2016-01-31
Contract Duration: 1,766 days
Daily Burn Rate: $75.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: PERFORMS NON-PERSONAL TECHNICAL AND MANAGMENT SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF TEST OPERATIONS, CORE OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT JOHN C. STENNIS SPACE CENTER, MS.
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $133.4 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES, LLC for work described as: PERFORMS NON-PERSONAL TECHNICAL AND MANAGMENT SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF TEST OPERATIONS, CORE OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT JOHN C. STENNIS SPACE CENTER, MS. Key points: 1. Contract supports critical test operations, core functions, and maintenance at John C. Stennis Space Center. 2. Awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for these specialized services. 3. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), incentivizes performance while allowing for cost reimbursement. 4. Duration of 1766 days (approx. 4.8 years) indicates a significant, long-term commitment to these services. 5. The contract's value of $133.4M places it as a substantial investment in space center infrastructure and operations. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541712 points to Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. 7. The base award value of $75.5M suggests a significant portion of the total contract value was awarded upfront. 8. The presence of two offers indicates a competitive landscape, though specific details on other bidders are not provided.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $133.4 million over nearly five years for technical and management services at a major NASA facility appears reasonable given the scope. While direct comparisons are difficult without more specific service breakdowns, similar large-scale facility operations and maintenance contracts for government installations often fall within this range. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for performance-based incentives, which can drive efficiency and value for money, provided the award fee criteria are well-defined and rigorously applied. Benchmarking against private sector equivalents for similar complex technical operations would be challenging due to the unique nature of a space center.
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 proposals. The fact that there were two offers suggests a competitive environment, though the exact number of bidders is not detailed. Full and open competition is generally expected to yield the best prices and terms for the government by allowing a wide range of contractors to vie for the work. The specific details of the bidding process, including the number of proposals received and the evaluation criteria, would provide further insight into the strength of the competition.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it maximizes the potential for cost savings and ensures that the government receives the best value by leveraging the broadest possible market.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and its mission objectives, particularly those reliant on the capabilities of the John C. Stennis Space Center. Services delivered include essential technical and management support for test operations, core operations, and ongoing maintenance. The geographic impact is concentrated at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, a key national asset for space exploration and propulsion testing. The contract supports a workforce involved in highly specialized technical, engineering, and management roles. This contract ensures the continued operational readiness and functionality of a critical national research and testing facility.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed meticulously, as the government reimburses costs and provides an award fee based on performance.
- The long duration of the contract (nearly 5 years) might limit flexibility for NASA to adapt to changing technological needs or market conditions without significant modification costs.
- Without detailed performance metrics and award fee criteria, it's difficult to fully assess the value-for-money aspect beyond the initial competitive award.
- The specific breakdown of services and their associated costs is not provided, making it hard to benchmark individual components of the contract.
- The reliance on a single contractor for such a broad range of critical services could pose a risk if the contractor faces financial or operational difficulties.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a healthy market and potential for competitive pricing.
- The CPAF structure incentivizes contractor performance, potentially leading to higher quality services and operational efficiencies.
- The contract supports a vital national asset (Stennis Space Center), ensuring continuity of critical space exploration and research operations.
- The long-term nature of the contract provides stability for both NASA and the contractor, fostering a dedicated relationship.
- Lockheed Martin Services, LLC is a well-established entity with significant experience in government contracting, suggesting a lower risk of contractor failure.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically NAICS code 541712, which covers physical, engineering, and life sciences R&D. The aerospace and defense industry, a major consumer of such services, is characterized by large, complex contracts often awarded through competitive processes. Spending in this area supports national strategic interests, technological advancement, and scientific discovery. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale government facility operations and maintenance contracts, particularly those supporting unique scientific or engineering infrastructure like NASA centers or national laboratories.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large prime contract awarded to Lockheed Martin Services, LLC, a major defense and aerospace contractor, the primary impact on small businesses would likely be through subcontracting opportunities. The extent to which Lockheed Martin utilizes small business subcontractors for specialized services or support functions will determine the direct benefit to the small business ecosystem. Without specific subcontracting plans or reports, it's difficult to quantify this impact, but large prime contracts often aim to meet small business subcontracting goals.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, NASA contracting officers and technical monitors would be responsible for overseeing cost expenditures, monitoring contractor performance against defined award fee criteria, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting requirements and potentially through NASA's public contract databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any investigations into fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract were initiated.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Operations and Maintenance Contracts
- Aerospace Research and Development Support
- Government Facility Management Services
- Space Propulsion Testing Support
- Stennis Space Center Operations
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost growth under CPAF structure if not managed tightly.
- Risk of reduced flexibility due to long contract duration.
- Dependence on well-defined performance metrics for award fee effectiveness.
- Lack of detailed service breakdown hinders granular cost benchmarking.
Tags
nasa, stennis-space-center, lockheed-martin-services, research-and-development, technical-services, management-services, operations-and-maintenance, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, mississippi, large-contract, aerospace
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $133.4 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES, LLC. PERFORMS NON-PERSONAL TECHNICAL AND MANAGMENT SERVICES IN SUPPORT OF TEST OPERATIONS, CORE OPERATIONS, AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AT JOHN C. STENNIS SPACE CENTER, MS.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES, 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 $133.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2011-04-01. End: 2016-01-31.
What is Lockheed Martin Services, LLC's track record with NASA and similar government contracts?
Lockheed Martin Services, LLC, a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, has an extensive history of performing complex technical, management, and operational services for NASA and other federal agencies. They are a major defense contractor with significant experience in areas such as space operations, systems engineering, and facility management. Their track record includes numerous large-scale contracts supporting NASA's various centers and missions, often involving critical infrastructure and advanced technology. While specific performance ratings for individual contracts are not publicly detailed in this summary, their sustained presence and ability to win large, competitive contracts suggest a generally positive performance history and strong capabilities in meeting government requirements. However, like any large contractor, they may have faced past performance challenges or disputes on specific contracts, which would be detailed in NASA's source selection decision documents if they impacted the award.
How does the $133.4 million contract value compare to similar NASA facility support contracts?
The $133.4 million contract value for nearly five years of operations, maintenance, and technical services at the John C. Stennis Space Center is substantial, reflecting the scale and complexity of supporting a major NASA facility. Comparing this value directly to other NASA contracts requires careful consideration of the scope of services, duration, and specific facility needs. However, large-scale support contracts for government installations, particularly those involving specialized scientific or engineering infrastructure like NASA centers, often range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars over multi-year periods. For instance, contracts for managing and operating other NASA centers, or large research facilities for agencies like the Department of Energy, can be of similar magnitude. The value appears consistent with the critical nature and extensive requirements of maintaining a premier rocket propulsion test site like Stennis.
What are the primary risks associated with this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure?
The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure, like the one awarded to Lockheed Martin Services, LLC, revolve around cost control and performance definition. While CPAF aims to incentivize performance through an award fee, there's a risk that costs could escalate if the base cost reimbursement component is not tightly managed. The government bears the risk of allowable costs, and if the contractor's cost estimating or management is weak, expenditures could exceed projections. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the award fee hinges entirely on the clarity, measurability, and fairness of the performance criteria. If these criteria are poorly defined, subjective, or not rigorously monitored, the award fee might not accurately reflect true value for money, potentially leading to overpayment for mediocre performance. Conversely, overly stringent criteria could demotivate the contractor.
How effective is the full and open competition in ensuring value for taxpayers?
Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for taxpayers in federal contracting. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it fosters a robust marketplace where contractors are incentivized to offer their best prices, innovative solutions, and highest quality services to win the contract. This broad competition drives down costs through market forces and reduces the risk of contractors charging excessive prices due to a lack of alternatives. In this specific case, the award to Lockheed Martin Services, LLC under full and open competition suggests that NASA received competitive proposals. The presence of two offers indicates some level of market interest, which is positive. However, the ultimate value for taxpayers also depends on the effectiveness of NASA's source selection process in evaluating proposals and negotiating the best possible terms, as well as ongoing contract administration and performance monitoring.
What is the historical spending trend for similar services at Stennis Space Center?
Analyzing historical spending trends for similar services at Stennis Space Center requires access to detailed contract databases and historical procurement data. This specific contract, awarded in 2011 with an end date in 2016, represents a significant investment. Prior to this award, NASA would have had other contracts in place to cover operations, maintenance, and technical support at Stennis. These could have been awarded to the same contractor or different entities, potentially under different contract types (e.g., fixed-price, cost-plus-fixed-fee). Understanding the trend would involve comparing the total value, duration, and scope of this contract against previous agreements for Stennis support. Factors like inflation, changes in NASA's mission requirements, and shifts in contracting strategies (e.g., moving towards more performance-based contracts) would influence year-over-year spending patterns. Without that granular historical data, it's difficult to establish a precise trend, but the $133.4M value suggests a consistent need for substantial support services at the center.
What are the implications of the contract's duration (1766 days) on program flexibility and cost?
The contract duration of 1766 days, approximately 4.8 years, has several implications for program flexibility and cost. On the cost side, a longer duration can provide cost stability and predictability for both NASA and the contractor, potentially allowing for economies of scale and more efficient resource planning. It reduces the administrative burden and costs associated with frequent re-procurement processes. However, from a flexibility standpoint, a long-term contract can be a double-edged sword. It might make it more challenging and costly for NASA to adapt quickly to evolving technological requirements, changes in mission priorities, or shifts in the market landscape. Modifying such a long-term contract to incorporate new technologies or significantly alter the scope of work can be complex and expensive. If the technology or operational needs change substantially mid-contract, NASA might be locked into a less optimal solution until the contract expires, or face significant costs to amend it.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Space R&D Services
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNS10336617R
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Lockheed Martin Corp
Address: 595 GEMINI AVE, HOUSTON, TX, 77058
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $140,378,662
Exercised Options: $140,378,662
Current Obligation: $133,402,388
Actual Outlays: $84,258
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2011-04-01
Current End Date: 2016-01-31
Potential End Date: 2016-01-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-09-09
More Contracts from Lockheed Martin Services, LLC
- Management and Operation of Y-12 Plant and Other Programs — $20.6B (Department of Energy)
- Dafis UDO Reconstruct W/O Advance — $3.8B (Department of Transportation)
- TAS::75 0511::TAS — $990.7M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Seat/Science Engineering,Analysis, and Test — $983.9M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- THE Goal of the Decennial Response Integration System (dris) Contract IS to Obtain a Practical Solution to Providing Respondent Assistance and Data Capture for the 2010 Census — $930.7M (Department of Commerce)
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 →