NSF awards $10M contract for Graduate Research Fellowship Program services to American Society for Engineering Education

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,019,863 ($10.0M)

Contractor: American Society for Engineering Education

Awarding Agency: National Science Foundation

Start Date: 2004-12-19

End Date: 2009-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,746 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: APPLICATION PROCESSING AND REVIEWER SERVICES FOR THE NSF GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20036

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Science Foundation obligated $10.0 million to AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION for work described as: APPLICATION PROCESSING AND REVIEWER SERVICES FOR THE NSF GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost control but also carries risk if costs escalate. 3. The duration of the contract is over 1700 days, indicating a long-term need for these services. 4. The awardee, American Society for Engineering Education, likely possesses specialized expertise in managing academic and research programs. 5. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the awarding and servicing agency, indicating direct program oversight. 6. The contract value is substantial, reflecting the importance of the Graduate Research Fellowship Program.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10,019,863 over approximately 4.7 years for application processing and reviewer services for a major fellowship program appears reasonable. Benchmarking against similar large-scale academic program administration contracts would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure means the government pays actual costs plus a fixed fee, which can be efficient if costs are well-managed, but it also means the contractor has less incentive to minimize costs compared to a fixed-price contract. Without specific per-unit cost data for applications processed or reviewers managed, a precise value assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through a 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this service. While two bidders is better than a sole-source award, a higher number of bidders typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process, even with two bidders, is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple firms to offer their best pricing and service terms.

Public Impact

Fellowship applicants benefit from a well-managed and efficient application review process. The services support the NSF's mission to promote science and engineering education and research. The program impacts future scientists and engineers across the United States. The contract supports administrative and reviewer workforce involved in the fellowship selection process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Limited competition (two bidders) may not have yielded the lowest possible price.
The long duration of the contract could present challenges in adapting to evolving program needs without modifications.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring a fair process.
The awardee is a specialized organization (American Society for Engineering Education), suggesting expertise.
The contract supports a critical NSF program, indicating alignment with national research and education goals.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader 'Educational Support Services' sector, specifically focusing on the administration and review of academic fellowship applications. This is a niche but vital area supporting federal research and development initiatives. The market for such services often involves professional societies, non-profits, and specialized administrative firms that have deep ties to academic disciplines and grant management. Comparable spending would involve other federal agencies managing large-scale grant and fellowship programs, such as NIH or DOE.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities, which are not detailed here. Without specific subcontracting plans or goals, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Science Foundation (NSF) contracting officers and program managers. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight is crucial to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable to the contract. Transparency would be facilitated through standard federal procurement reporting mechanisms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program
Federal Grant Management Services
Academic Fellowship Administration
STEM Education Support

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract requires close monitoring of expenditures.
Limited competition may result in suboptimal pricing.
Long contract duration could lead to outdated processes or increased costs over time.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Science Foundation awarded $10.0 million to AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION. APPLICATION PROCESSING AND REVIEWER SERVICES FOR THE NSF GRADUATE RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: National Science Foundation (National Science Foundation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-12-19. End: 2009-09-30.

What is the track record of the American Society for Engineering Education in managing large federal grant or fellowship programs?

The American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) has a long history of supporting engineering and technology education. While specific details on their track record managing federal fellowship programs of this exact scale are not provided in the summary data, ASEE is a well-established professional society with significant experience in convening experts, managing conferences, and publishing technical content relevant to engineering disciplines. Their involvement suggests they possess the organizational capacity and network to handle the administrative and reviewer coordination aspects of the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Program. Further investigation into their past performance on similar contracts or grants would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of their capabilities and reliability in this specific role.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure compare to other potential contract types for this service?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. For services like application processing and reviewer management, CPFF can be suitable when the scope of work is not precisely defined or when unforeseen technical uncertainties exist, allowing flexibility. However, it offers less incentive for cost savings compared to Fixed-Price contracts, where the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns. Other options could include Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), which adds performance incentives, or Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) if the scope and costs were highly predictable. Given the nature of fellowship programs which can see fluctuating application volumes, CPFF provides a balance of flexibility and defined profit, but requires diligent government oversight of costs.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract duration of over 1700 days?

A contract duration of over 1700 days (approximately 4.7 years) presents several potential risks. Firstly, the cost of services could escalate over time due to inflation or changes in labor market rates, which may not be fully captured by the fixed fee component unless cost escalation clauses are included. Secondly, the program's requirements or the technological landscape for application processing might evolve significantly during this period, potentially rendering the initial contract terms or systems outdated. This could necessitate costly contract modifications or a less efficient process. Thirdly, maintaining consistent performance quality and contractor engagement over such an extended period can be challenging. Finally, long-term contracts can sometimes reduce the government's agility to switch to potentially better or more cost-effective solutions if they emerge during the contract's term.

How does the level of competition (2 bidders) impact the value for money for the NSF?

Having only two bidders in a 'full and open competition' suggests a moderate, rather than robust, level of competition. While it is preferable to a sole-source award, a higher number of bidders typically drives prices down more effectively as companies vie for the contract. With only two competitors, there is a greater risk that the winning bid may not represent the absolute lowest price achievable in a more crowded marketplace. This could mean that the government might be paying a premium compared to what could have been secured with, for example, five or more bidders. Therefore, the value for money might be considered fair, but potentially not optimal, necessitating strong negotiation and oversight by the NSF to ensure costs remain reasonable.

What are the implications of awarding this contract to a professional society like ASEE versus a for-profit administrative company?

Awarding the contract to a professional society like the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) can have several implications compared to a for-profit administrative company. ASEE likely has a deep understanding of the academic and research community, strong relationships with potential reviewers, and a mission aligned with advancing engineering education, which can foster trust and facilitate collaboration. This mission alignment might translate into a strong commitment to the program's goals. However, professional societies may sometimes have less experience with the rigorous cost-containment pressures and sophisticated project management tools often employed by large for-profit government contractors. Their overhead structures might also differ. The NSF's choice suggests they prioritized ASEE's specific expertise and connection to the target community over potential cost efficiencies or management practices of a purely commercial entity.

Can historical spending data for NSF's Graduate Research Fellowship Program administration provide insights into the efficiency of this contract?

Historical spending data for the NSF's Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) administration could offer valuable insights into the efficiency of this current contract. By analyzing how much NSF has spent on similar services in previous years, and comparing that to the number of applications processed, reviewers managed, or fellows supported, one could establish trends in cost per unit. For instance, if historical data shows a significant increase in administrative costs per fellow without a corresponding increase in services or program scope, it might indicate declining efficiency. Conversely, if costs have remained stable or decreased relative to output, it could suggest effective management. Without access to this specific historical data, it is difficult to definitively assess whether the current $10M award represents an improvement, a decline, or a continuation of past spending patterns in terms of efficiency.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Educational Support Services › Educational Support Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1818 N ST NW STE 600, WASHINGTON, DC, 98

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,245,129

Exercised Options: $10,019,863

Current Obligation: $10,019,863

Timeline