NASA awards $2.75M contract for engineering services on VAB High Bay 3 platform upgrades
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $2,748,666 ($2.7M)
Contractor: Merrick & Company
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2022-03-14
End Date: 2026-04-30
Contract Duration: 1,508 days
Daily Burn Rate: $1.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Construction
Official Description: ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION (ESDC) OF VEHICLE ASSEMBLY BUILDING (VAB) HIGH BAY 3 PLATFORM UPGRADES.
Place of Performance
Location: DECATUR, DEKALB County, GEORGIA, 30030
State: Georgia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $2.7 million to MERRICK & COMPANY for work described as: ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION (ESDC) OF VEHICLE ASSEMBLY BUILDING (VAB) HIGH BAY 3 PLATFORM UPGRADES. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on essential engineering support for critical infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs for the duration of the project. 3. Competition was full and open, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 4. The contract duration of approximately 4 years indicates a significant, long-term project. 5. Services are categorized under Engineering Services, aligning with specialized technical needs. 6. The award was a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar framework.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $2.75 million for engineering services over a 4-year period appears reasonable for specialized construction support. Benchmarking against similar large-scale NASA infrastructure projects suggests that costs for engineering design and oversight are typically within this range. The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, mitigating the risk of cost overruns associated with labor hour or cost-plus contracts. Without specific details on the scope of work or the number of hours required, a precise per-unit cost comparison is difficult, but the overall value seems aligned with the complexity and duration of the project.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. While the number of bidders is not specified, the 'full and open' designation suggests that NASA sought to maximize competition to achieve the best value. This method is preferred for ensuring fair market access and potentially driving down costs through competitive pressures.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of securing services at competitive market rates, preventing potential overpricing that could occur with less competitive procurement methods.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and its mission-critical operations at the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). The contract delivers essential engineering services for the upgrade of the High Bay 3 platform, crucial for space launch vehicle processing. The geographic impact is localized to Kennedy Space Center in Florida, supporting its infrastructure. The contract supports specialized engineering roles, potentially creating or sustaining employment for skilled professionals in the aerospace and engineering sectors.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for scope creep if the project's engineering requirements are not tightly defined and managed.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical engineering services could pose a risk if performance issues arise.
- The long duration of the contract necessitates ongoing oversight to ensure continued alignment with NASA's evolving needs.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability and limits the government's financial exposure.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process, likely resulting in a qualified contractor.
- The project addresses a critical infrastructure need, ensuring the continued operational capability of the VAB.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting large-scale construction and infrastructure projects within the aerospace industry. The market for specialized engineering services supporting government facilities, particularly for space exploration, is highly specialized. NASA's spending in this area is driven by the need for advanced technical expertise to maintain and upgrade its unique launch and processing infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely be found in other large federal construction and facility modernization programs, where engineering design, analysis, and oversight are critical components.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications mandated by small business set-aside provisions. However, the prime contractor, Merrick & Company, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors based on their own procurement strategies or the availability of specialized services. The absence of a set-aside means the primary focus was on full and open competition to secure the best overall value, rather than specifically directing a portion of the work to small businesses.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract is likely managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contracting officers and technical representatives. As a delivery order under a potential larger IDIQ or similar contract vehicle, there would be established procedures for monitoring performance, progress, and adherence to the contract terms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting mechanisms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.
Related Government Programs
- NASA VAB Modifications
- Space Launch System (SLS) Infrastructure Support
- Kennedy Space Center Facilities Modernization
- Aerospace Engineering Services Contracts
- Large Construction Project Oversight
Risk Flags
- Potential for schedule delays if engineering tasks are complex or encounter unforeseen issues.
- Contract performance risk if the contractor's expertise or execution does not meet NASA's standards.
- Scope definition risk: ensuring all necessary engineering aspects are covered without ambiguity.
Tags
engineering-services, construction, nasa, kennedy-space-center, vehicle-assembly-building, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, infrastructure, aerospace, florida, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $2.7 million to MERRICK & COMPANY. ENGINEERING SERVICES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION (ESDC) OF VEHICLE ASSEMBLY BUILDING (VAB) HIGH BAY 3 PLATFORM UPGRADES.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is MERRICK & COMPANY.
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 $2.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2022-03-14. End: 2026-04-30.
What is the track record of Merrick & Company with NASA, particularly on similar infrastructure projects?
Merrick & Company has a history of performing engineering and construction services for various government agencies, including NASA. While specific details on their past performance on VAB-related projects require deeper investigation into NASA's contract databases, their presence as a prime contractor on this significant infrastructure upgrade suggests a demonstrated capability and prior positive performance. Analyzing their past contract awards, performance evaluations (if publicly available), and any past performance issues or disputes with NASA would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and expertise for this specific type of work. Their ability to secure this contract under full and open competition implies they met NASA's technical and responsibility requirements.
How does the $2.75 million value compare to similar engineering services contracts for large-scale construction projects at other federal facilities?
The $2.75 million contract value for engineering services over approximately four years for the VAB High Bay 3 platform upgrades appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized infrastructure projects of this nature. Benchmarking against similar large-scale federal construction and modernization efforts, such as those undertaken by the Department of Defense or the General Services Administration, reveals that engineering design, analysis, and oversight can represent a significant portion of the total project cost. Factors influencing this value include the complexity of the engineering required, the duration of the support, the specific technical expertise needed, and the prevailing market rates for such services. Without a detailed breakdown of the scope of work, it's challenging to provide a precise per-square-foot or per-labor-hour comparison, but the overall magnitude aligns with the critical nature of supporting space launch infrastructure.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?
The primary risks associated with this contract include potential scope creep, where the engineering requirements may expand beyond the initial definition, leading to cost overruns or schedule delays. Another risk is contractor performance; if Merrick & Company fails to deliver the required engineering expertise or quality, it could impact the VAB upgrade schedule and functionality. Mitigation strategies likely include robust contract management by NASA, with clear definition of the scope of work, regular progress reviews, and performance monitoring. The firm-fixed-price contract type itself acts as a mitigation for cost risk by capping the government's financial exposure. Clear communication channels and defined deliverables are crucial for managing performance risks.
How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for this specific project?
The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in ensuring value for money for projects with well-defined scopes, such as engineering services for a specific platform upgrade. FFP shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage their costs efficiently and complete the work within the agreed-upon price. This provides cost certainty for NASA, making budgeting more predictable. For this project, assuming the scope of engineering services is clearly delineated, the FFP structure should encourage Merrick & Company to deliver the required services at the most competitive price they can achieve, thereby maximizing value for the government. However, if the scope is inherently uncertain or prone to change, an FFP contract could lead to contractor reluctance to perform additional work or potentially higher initial bids to account for unforeseen risks.
What is the historical spending trend for engineering services related to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA?
Historical spending on engineering services for the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at NASA would likely show a pattern of consistent investment, reflecting the VAB's critical role in space launch operations. Spending would fluctuate based on major upgrade cycles, new vehicle integration requirements (like the Space Launch System), and ongoing maintenance needs. Periods of significant spending might correlate with major modernization efforts or the introduction of new launch vehicles requiring modifications to the VAB's infrastructure. Analyzing past NASA budget allocations and contract awards specifically for VAB engineering support would reveal trends in investment levels, the types of services procured, and the contractors most frequently engaged. This contract represents a continuation of such investments to maintain and enhance this vital national asset.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 5970 GREENWOOD PLAZA BLVD, GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO, 80111
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $2,748,666
Exercised Options: $2,748,666
Current Obligation: $2,748,666
Actual Outlays: $2,472,315
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 80KSC022DA115
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2022-03-14
Current End Date: 2026-04-30
Potential End Date: 2026-04-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-01-13
More Contracts from Merrick & Company
- Nbaf - Accelerated Project Management, Stand-Up Planning and Recommissioning — $24.2M (Department of Agriculture)
- Contract Award for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (piadc) Plum Island Closure and Support (pics) Program Scientific, Technical and Engineering Support (stens) Project — $12.6M (Department of Homeland Security)
- Biorepository Transfer Support — $3.8M (Department of Agriculture)
- Southeast Regional Architect-Engineer (serae) Task Order to Provide Design for Vehicle Assembly Building High BAY 4 Modifications , Project Control Number 99500.3 — $2.1M (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 →