NASA's $485.7M Facility Operations Contract Awarded to Mississippi Space Services Under Full and Open Competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $485,671,666 ($485.7M)
Contractor: Mississippi Space Services
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 1999-11-15
End Date: 2009-04-30
Contract Duration: 3,454 days
Daily Burn Rate: $140.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE
Sector: Other
Official Description: FACILITY OPERATING SERVICES AT SSC, INCLUDING BUILDING AND GOURNDS MAINTENANCE, MEDICAL CLINIC, CAFETERIA, ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROCUREMENT SERVICES, GRAPHICS SERVICES, ET AL.
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $485.7 million to MISSISSIPPI SPACE SERVICES for work described as: FACILITY OPERATING SERVICES AT SSC, INCLUDING BUILDING AND GOURNDS MAINTENANCE, MEDICAL CLINIC, CAFETERIA, ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROCUREMENT SERVICES, GRAPHICS SERVICES, ET AL. Key points: 1. Contract awarded for comprehensive facility operating services, including maintenance, medical, and engineering. 2. Significant contract value of $485.7 million over its duration. 3. Procurement method was full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 4. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee, which can incentivize cost control but also carries risk.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $485.7 million over approximately 9.5 years suggests an average annual spend of roughly $51 million. Without specific benchmarks for similar NASA facility operations contracts, it's difficult to definitively assess pricing, but the Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure warrants careful monitoring.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to compete. This method generally promotes price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of the award is positive for taxpayers, as it likely resulted in a more favorable price than a sole-source or limited competition scenario.
Public Impact
Supports critical operations at a NASA facility, ensuring continuity of services. The long duration of the contract (over 9 years) provides stability for the contractor and the agency. Potential for cost overruns exists due to the Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure, requiring diligent oversight.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure
- Long contract duration
- Lack of specific unit cost benchmarks
Positive Signals
- Full and open competition
- Awarded to a single entity for comprehensive services
- Long-term stability for operations
Sector Analysis
This contract falls under Facilities Support Services, a broad category encompassing the management and maintenance of physical infrastructure. Spending in this sector can vary widely based on the complexity and scale of the facilities managed.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small businesses were not directly involved as the prime contractor, as the award went to 'MISSISSIPPI SPACE SERVICES'. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved as subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
The Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract type necessitates robust oversight from NASA to ensure costs are managed effectively and that the contractor meets performance objectives. The agency's procurement services and contract administration will be crucial.
Related Government Programs
- Facilities Support Services
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracting
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration Programs
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.
- Long contract duration may not account for future technological advancements or changing needs.
- Lack of specific unit cost data makes independent price validation challenging.
- Potential for contractor to prioritize profit over optimal service delivery if incentives are misaligned.
Tags
facilities-support-services, national-aeronautics-and-space-administr, ms, dca, 100m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $485.7 million to MISSISSIPPI SPACE SERVICES. FACILITY OPERATING SERVICES AT SSC, INCLUDING BUILDING AND GOURNDS MAINTENANCE, MEDICAL CLINIC, CAFETERIA, ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROCUREMENT SERVICES, GRAPHICS SERVICES, ET AL.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is MISSISSIPPI SPACE SERVICES.
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 $485.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-11-15. End: 2009-04-30.
What is the typical profit margin for Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts in facility operations?
Profit margins for Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts can vary significantly based on industry, agency, and specific contract terms. Generally, CPIF aims to share cost savings and overruns between the government and contractor, with incentives tied to achieving target costs and performance metrics. While specific benchmarks are hard to generalize, agencies often aim for a reasonable profit range that balances contractor motivation with taxpayer protection, typically within single to low double-digit percentages of the total contract cost.
How does the long duration of this contract impact potential cost savings or risks?
A long contract duration, like this 9.5-year agreement, can offer stability and allow the contractor to achieve economies of scale, potentially leading to cost savings through optimized operations and long-term planning. However, it also increases the risk of cost escalation due to inflation, unforeseen operational challenges, or changes in technology over time. Without clear mechanisms for price adjustments or performance reviews, the agency might be locked into suboptimal costs if market conditions or service needs change significantly.
What specific performance metrics are tied to the incentive fee in this contract?
The provided data does not specify the performance metrics linked to the incentive fee. In a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract, these metrics are crucial for aligning contractor performance with agency goals. They typically relate to factors such as cost control (meeting or beating target costs), schedule adherence, quality of service delivery (e.g., maintenance response times, facility uptime), safety performance, or customer satisfaction. NASA would have defined these KPIs in the contract solicitation and award.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE (V)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Computer Sciences Corporation (UEI: 009581091)
Address: BLDG. 2108, STENNIS SPACE CENTER, MS, 04
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $359,381,250
Exercised Options: $485,671,666
Current Obligation: $485,671,666
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-11-15
Current End Date: 2009-04-30
Potential End Date: 2009-04-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2014-09-12
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 →