NASA awards $7.1M contract to Integration Innovation Inc. for flight crew operations support at AFRC
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $7,139,554 ($7.1M)
Contractor: Integration Innovation Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2024-01-01
End Date: 2026-03-31
Contract Duration: 820 days
Daily Burn Rate: $8.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPORT THE FLIGHT CREW OPERATIONS OF ALL AIRCRAFT ASSIGNED TO NASA AFRC
Place of Performance
Location: EDWARDS, KERN County, CALIFORNIA, 93523
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $7.1 million to INTEGRATION INNOVATION INC for work described as: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPORT THE FLIGHT CREW OPERATIONS OF ALL AIRCRAFT ASSIGNED TO NASA AFRC Key points: 1. Contract focuses on essential flight crew operations, indicating a need for specialized support. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs for the duration of the contract. 3. Competition was full and open, suggesting a robust market for these services. 4. The contract duration of approximately 27 months provides a stable period for service delivery. 5. Support is geographically concentrated at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center in California. 6. This award represents a specific investment in maintaining critical aviation capabilities.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $7.1 million over approximately 27 months appears reasonable for specialized flight crew support services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for aviation support at federal research centers would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price type suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple capable vendors were likely solicited. This process generally leads to a wider range of proposals and potentially more competitive pricing. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the competition type suggests a healthy market for these services.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down prices through market forces and ensures the government receives the best value by considering all qualified sources.
Public Impact
Flight crews operating aircraft assigned to NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center will benefit from enhanced operational support. Services delivered include the necessary support to ensure the safety and efficiency of flight operations. The geographic impact is localized to Edwards Air Force Base, California, where AFRC is located. This contract supports a specialized workforce involved in aviation and flight operations.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for scope creep if operational requirements evolve beyond initial projections.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical flight crew support could pose a risk if performance issues arise.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
- Full and open competition suggests a competitive environment that should yield good value.
- Longer-term contract (over 2 years) allows for stable planning and execution of services.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on aviation support services. The market for such specialized operational support is often characterized by a limited number of highly qualified contractors. Spending in this area is critical for agencies like NASA that rely on complex aviation assets for research and development.
Small Business Impact
The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. As it was awarded under full and open competition, there is no explicit requirement for subcontracting to small businesses unless voluntarily proposed by the prime contractor. Further analysis would be needed to determine if Integration Innovation Inc. has a history of subcontracting with small businesses.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contracting officers and program managers at the Armstrong Flight Research Center. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which ties payment to successful delivery of services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics may not be publicly disclosed.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Flight Operations Support Contracts
- Aviation Services for Federal Agencies
- Research and Development Flight Support
Risk Flags
- Potential for performance issues impacting critical flight operations.
- Risk of cost overruns if contract scope is not tightly managed.
- Dependence on a single contractor for essential support services.
Tags
nasa, flight-crew-operations, aviation-support, armstrong-flight-research-center, integration-innovation-inc, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, california, research-and-development, aerospace, delivery-order
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $7.1 million to INTEGRATION INNOVATION INC. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPORT THE FLIGHT CREW OPERATIONS OF ALL AIRCRAFT ASSIGNED TO NASA AFRC
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is INTEGRATION INNOVATION 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 $7.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2024-01-01. End: 2026-03-31.
What is Integration Innovation Inc.'s track record with NASA and similar government contracts?
Integration Innovation Inc. (i3) has a history of supporting NASA and other government agencies, particularly in areas related to aerospace engineering, research, and development. Their portfolio often includes work on advanced technologies, flight systems, and mission support. For NASA, i3 has been involved in various projects, demonstrating capability in complex technical environments. A review of their contract history would reveal the types and scale of previous awards, performance ratings, and any past issues. This specific contract for flight crew operations support at AFRC builds upon their established presence and expertise within the aerospace sector, suggesting a degree of confidence from NASA in their ability to fulfill these critical functions.
How does the $7.1 million contract value compare to similar flight crew support contracts?
Benchmarking the $7.1 million contract value requires comparing it to similar contracts for flight crew operations support at other NASA centers or comparable federal aviation facilities. Factors such as the number of aircraft supported, the complexity of operations, the specific roles of the flight crew (e.g., pilots, mission specialists), and the duration of the contract significantly influence pricing. Without access to a database of comparable contracts, a precise comparison is difficult. However, for a contract spanning over two years and involving specialized support for research aircraft, $7.1 million appears to be within a reasonable range, especially given the firm-fixed-price structure which shifts cost risk to the contractor. The full and open competition also suggests that the price achieved reflects market conditions.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract for NASA?
The primary risks associated with this contract for NASA include potential performance deficiencies by Integration Innovation Inc., leading to disruptions in flight operations. Given the specialized nature of flight crew support, a lack of qualified personnel or inadequate training by the contractor could pose a significant risk to mission success and safety. Another risk is the potential for cost growth if the firm-fixed-price contract contains poorly defined scope or if unforeseen operational requirements emerge that necessitate contract modifications. Dependence on a single contractor for critical support functions also presents a risk if the contractor faces financial instability or decides to exit the market. NASA's oversight and performance management will be crucial in mitigating these risks.
How effective is the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type in ensuring value for this specific service?
The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for ensuring value when the scope of work is well-defined and the risks are understood. For flight crew operations support, where many tasks are routine and predictable, FFP provides cost certainty for NASA. It incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently and perform services within the agreed-upon price, as any overruns are absorbed by Integration Innovation Inc. This structure minimizes the government's exposure to cost increases. However, if the scope is not precisely defined, it could lead to disputes or the contractor cutting corners to maintain profitability, potentially impacting service quality. NASA's robust performance monitoring is key to ensuring value under an FFP arrangement.
What is the historical spending trend for flight crew operations support at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center?
Analyzing historical spending trends for flight crew operations support at NASA's Armstrong Flight Research Center (AFRC) would provide context for the current $7.1 million award. This would involve examining previous contracts awarded for similar services, their values, durations, and the contractors involved. Understanding whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable over time can indicate shifts in operational tempo, technological requirements, or budget allocations. For instance, a consistent or increasing trend might suggest a growing reliance on AFRC's flight capabilities or an aging fleet requiring more intensive support. Conversely, a decreasing trend could signal a reduction in flight operations or a shift towards more cost-effective support models. Without specific historical data, it's challenging to ascertain the trend.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Support Activities for Air Transportation › Other Support Activities for Air Transportation
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 689 DISCOVERY DR BLDG 1 STE 500, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35806
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $8,709,059
Exercised Options: $7,673,160
Current Obligation: $7,139,554
Actual Outlays: $6,280,081
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 80AFRC18D0004
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2024-01-01
Current End Date: 2026-03-31
Potential End Date: 2026-07-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-17
More Contracts from Integration Innovation Inc
- This Task Order Provides Design, Development, Engineering and Integration, Testing, and System Checkout of ALL System Components and Subsystems of the Phoenix Test Apparatus. the Scope Includes Final Demonstration of the Integrated Test Capability to Ensure the Capability Meets the Overall Operational Metrics Defined in the to — $220.1M (General Services Administration)
- Federal Contract — $50.5M (Department of Defense)
- THE Platform Integration Function of the Weapons Development and Integration Directorate (wdid), Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (amrdec) — $29.0M (Department of Defense)
- Task Order for International Apache Technical Lifecycle Support. Igf::ct::igf — $28.6M (Department of Defense)
- THE Contractor Shall Support the Flight Crew Operations of ALL Aircraft Assigned to Nasa Afrc — $26.1M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
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 →