NASA's $47.5M Space Shuttle Main Engine Hardware Assurance Testing contract awarded to Aerojet Rocketdyne
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $47,545,716 ($47.5M)
Contractor: Aerojet Rocketdyne of DE, Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 1999-10-15
End Date: 2001-12-31
Contract Duration: 808 days
Daily Burn Rate: $58.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: HARDWARE ASSURANCE TESTING FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE.
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $47.5 million to AEROJET ROCKETDYNE OF DE, INC for work described as: HARDWARE ASSURANCE TESTING FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE. Key points: 1. Contract focused on critical hardware assurance for the Space Shuttle Main Engine, a high-stakes program. 2. Awarded under a full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), incentivizes performance while allowing for cost reimbursement. 4. Duration of 808 days indicates a substantial testing and assurance effort. 5. The contract was awarded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), a key player in space exploration. 6. Geographic impact is noted in Mississippi, where the contractor's facility is located.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging due to its specialized nature and historical context. The $47.5 million awarded for hardware assurance testing of the Space Shuttle Main Engine over approximately two years reflects the complexity and criticality of the Space Shuttle program. Without comparable contracts for similar high-assurance testing of advanced rocket engines, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure suggests an attempt to balance cost control with performance incentives, which is a common approach for complex, high-risk projects.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under a 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The number of bidders is not specified in the provided data, but the designation suggests a robust competitive environment. A full and open competition is generally expected to yield the best prices and terms for the government by allowing a wide range of potential contractors to vie for the work.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is favorable for taxpayers as it maximizes the potential for competitive pricing and ensures that the government is not unduly limited in its sourcing options, potentially leading to cost savings.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and the Space Shuttle program, ensuring the safety and reliability of the main engines. Services delivered include critical hardware assurance testing, vital for mission success and astronaut safety. The geographic impact is primarily in Mississippi, where Aerojet Rocketdyne's facility likely conducted the testing. Workforce implications include employment for skilled engineers, technicians, and support staff involved in the testing process.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type can sometimes lead to higher costs if award fees are consistently maximized without stringent oversight.
- Specialized nature of the work makes direct cost comparisons difficult, potentially obscuring inefficiencies.
- The contract is for hardware assurance, which is critical but does not directly produce new capabilities, making its 'value' harder to quantify than development contracts.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive process that should drive value.
- The contract addresses a critical need for hardware assurance in a high-stakes program (Space Shuttle).
- The CPAF structure includes incentives for performance, aiming to achieve high-quality results.
- The contractor, Aerojet Rocketdyne, is a known entity in aerospace propulsion, suggesting relevant expertise.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on propulsion systems and testing for spaceflight. The market for such specialized testing services is limited to a few key contractors with the necessary expertise and facilities. NASA's spending in this area is crucial for maintaining the safety and operational integrity of its flagship programs like the Space Shuttle. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely involve other high-assurance testing contracts for critical aerospace components, often involving significant investment due to the stringent requirements.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Given the highly specialized nature of Space Shuttle Main Engine hardware assurance testing, it is unlikely that small businesses would possess the required capabilities or certifications. Therefore, subcontracting opportunities for small businesses might be limited to support services rather than core testing functions.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, it would involve regular reviews of costs incurred and performance against established award criteria. NASA's program offices and potentially its Inspector General would be responsible for ensuring accountability and transparency, scrutinizing expenditures and the achievement of performance objectives to justify award fees.
Related Government Programs
- Space Shuttle Program
- Main Engine Development and Testing
- Aerospace Propulsion Systems
- NASA Hardware Assurance Programs
Risk Flags
- Contract Type: CPAF can lead to higher costs if not managed tightly.
- Specialized Service: Difficulty in direct value benchmarking.
- Historical Contract: Data context may be limited compared to current contracts.
Tags
nasa, space-shuttle, main-engine, hardware-assurance, testing, aerojet-rocketdyne, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, mississippi, aerospace, defense, propulsion
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $47.5 million to AEROJET ROCKETDYNE OF DE, INC. HARDWARE ASSURANCE TESTING FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE MAIN ENGINE.
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 $47.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-10-15. End: 2001-12-31.
What was the specific nature of the 'hardware assurance testing' performed under this contract?
The 'hardware assurance testing' for the Space Shuttle Main Engine likely involved a comprehensive suite of evaluations designed to verify the reliability, durability, and safety of critical engine components. This could include non-destructive testing (NDT) methods like X-rays, ultrasonic testing, and dye penetrant inspections to detect flaws or material defects. It might also encompass performance testing under simulated operational conditions, stress testing to determine failure points, material analysis to ensure compliance with specifications, and verification of manufacturing processes. The goal was to ensure that every component met the stringent safety and performance standards required for human spaceflight, mitigating risks associated with engine failure during missions.
How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure typically function, and what were the potential award criteria for this contract?
A Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred, plus a base fee (often a small percentage of estimated costs) and an additional award fee. The award fee is determined by the government based on the contractor's performance against pre-defined criteria. For this NASA contract, potential award criteria could have included meeting or exceeding performance targets for engine reliability, achieving specific testing milestones ahead of schedule, demonstrating exceptional quality control in testing procedures, minimizing test-related anomalies or failures, and providing timely and accurate reporting. The government's evaluation of performance against these criteria would dictate the amount of the award fee, incentivizing the contractor to go beyond minimum requirements.
What is Aerojet Rocketdyne's historical track record with NASA and the Space Shuttle program?
Aerojet Rocketdyne (and its predecessor companies) has a long and significant history of supporting NASA programs, particularly in the area of rocket propulsion. They were a key contractor for various components and engines throughout the Space Shuttle program, including work on the main engines themselves. Their expertise in solid and liquid rocket propulsion is well-established. While specific details of their performance on every contract vary, their continued selection for critical roles in high-stakes programs like the Space Shuttle indicates a generally positive track record and recognized capability in meeting NASA's demanding requirements for spaceflight hardware.
Can we compare the value of this $47.5M contract to other similar hardware assurance testing contracts?
Direct comparison of this $47.5 million contract for Space Shuttle Main Engine hardware assurance testing is difficult due to the unique and highly specialized nature of the Space Shuttle program and its components. Contracts for testing critical aerospace hardware, especially for human spaceflight, are inherently expensive due to the rigorous standards, advanced technology, and extensive validation required. Benchmarking would ideally involve similar contracts for testing main rocket engines or other primary flight systems on comparable space programs (e.g., other NASA initiatives, or potentially military space programs). However, the specific details of such contracts are often not publicly available, and the Space Shuttle was a unique program, making precise value comparisons challenging without access to proprietary data or more extensive historical contract databases.
What were the primary risks associated with the Space Shuttle Main Engine hardware, and how did this contract aim to mitigate them?
The primary risks associated with the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) hardware were catastrophic failure during launch or ascent, leading to loss of the vehicle and crew. These engines operated under extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, and vibration. Hardware assurance testing aimed to mitigate these risks by proactively identifying potential weaknesses, material flaws, or design vulnerabilities before they could lead to in-flight failures. This involved rigorous testing of individual components and sub-assemblies, as well as integrated system tests, to ensure they could withstand the demanding operational environment. By verifying the integrity and performance of the hardware through extensive testing, NASA sought to maximize mission safety and reliability.
How has NASA's spending on engine testing and assurance evolved since the end of the Space Shuttle program?
Since the end of the Space Shuttle program in 2011, NASA's approach to engine testing and assurance has evolved significantly, reflecting new program priorities and technological advancements. While the extreme scale and specific requirements of the SSME are no longer replicated, NASA continues to invest heavily in testing and assurance for its current and future launch systems, such as the Space Launch System (SLS) and commercial crew/cargo vehicles. Spending now focuses on developing and validating engines for these new platforms, often leveraging advanced manufacturing techniques and more integrated testing methodologies. There's also a greater emphasis on utilizing digital modeling and simulation alongside physical testing. The overall spending landscape has shifted from supporting a single, large human spaceflight program to a more diversified portfolio involving multiple launch providers and exploration goals.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: RTX Corp (UEI: 001344142)
Address: 6633 CANOGA AVENE, CANOGA PARK, CA, 32
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $176,851,577
Exercised Options: $176,851,577
Current Obligation: $47,545,716
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-10-15
Current End Date: 2001-12-31
Potential End Date: 2001-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2009-11-13
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 →