NASA's $337M safety and mission assurance contract awarded to Bastion Technologies, Inc. for R&D support
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $337,254,777 ($337.3M)
Contractor: Bastion Technologies, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2017-11-01
End Date: 2025-12-31
Contract Duration: 2,982 days
Daily Burn Rate: $113.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SERVICES TO SUPPORT MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, STENNIS SPACE CENTER, KENNEDY SPACE CENTER AND MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35812
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $337.3 million to BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SERVICES TO SUPPORT MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, STENNIS SPACE CENTER, KENNEDY SPACE CENTER AND MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY Key points: 1. Contract provides critical safety and mission assurance services across multiple NASA facilities. 2. The contract's cost-plus award fee structure incentivizes performance and cost control. 3. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, suggesting a robust bidding process. 4. The duration of the contract (over 8 years) indicates a long-term need for these services. 5. Services are essential for maintaining the integrity and success of NASA's space missions. 6. The contract supports research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract's value of over $337 million spread across nearly 8 years suggests a significant but potentially reasonable investment for comprehensive safety and mission assurance services. Benchmarking against similar large-scale R&D support contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure allows for performance-based adjustments, which can lead to better value if the contractor meets or exceeds expectations. The total obligated amount relative to the period of performance will be a key indicator of ongoing value.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This indicates that while the competition was open, specific sources may have been excluded based on pre-qualification or other criteria, which is a common practice for specialized services. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specialized requirement. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and better value for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition, even with exclusions, aims to ensure that the government receives the best possible price and performance by allowing multiple qualified companies to bid. This process helps taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that drives down costs and improves service quality.
Public Impact
Benefits NASA's mission-critical operations by ensuring safety and reliability in space exploration and research. Delivers essential safety and mission assurance services to Marshall Space Flight Center, Stennis Space Center, Kennedy Space Center, and Michoud Assembly Facility. Geographic impact is concentrated in Alabama and Louisiana, where these key NASA facilities are located. Supports a specialized workforce in engineering, safety, and quality assurance within the aerospace sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee contracts if performance targets are not met efficiently.
- Reliance on a single contractor for critical safety functions across multiple high-profile facilities requires robust oversight.
- The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants scrutiny to ensure it did not unduly limit competition.
Positive Signals
- The Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes high performance and successful mission outcomes.
- Long contract duration suggests a stable and reliable partnership for essential services.
- Awarding to a single entity for integrated services across facilities may lead to efficiencies and standardized safety protocols.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The aerospace industry, a significant part of this sector, relies heavily on robust safety and mission assurance to mitigate risks associated with complex and high-stakes projects. Spending in this area is critical for maintaining technological advancement and national security interests. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely involve other large-scale engineering support and safety oversight contracts within government agencies like NASA, DoD, or DOE.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Bastion Technologies, Inc. is likely a large business. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without this information, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem, though large prime contracts often involve subcontracting opportunities.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight is primarily managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) itself, given the nature of the contract supporting its core facilities and missions. The contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee) implies performance metrics and deliverables that NASA will monitor to determine award fees. Transparency is facilitated through federal contract databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Safety and Mission Assurance Services
- Aerospace Research and Development Support
- Space Center Operations Support
- Engineering and Technical Services Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost growth in CPAF contracts.
- Reliance on contractor performance for critical safety functions.
- Justification for 'exclusion of sources' requires review.
- Long contract duration necessitates ongoing performance monitoring.
Tags
nasa, safety-and-mission-assurance, research-and-development, aerospace, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, alabama, louisiana, large-contract, engineering-services, multi-year
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $337.3 million to BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE SERVICES TO SUPPORT MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER, STENNIS SPACE CENTER, KENNEDY SPACE CENTER AND MICHOUD ASSEMBLY FACILITY
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is BASTION TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $337.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2017-11-01. End: 2025-12-31.
What is the historical performance record of Bastion Technologies, Inc. with NASA and other federal agencies, particularly regarding safety and mission assurance contracts?
Bastion Technologies, Inc. has a history of performing contracts related to safety, mission assurance, and engineering support for NASA and other government entities. Analyzing their past performance requires reviewing contract databases for awards, performance evaluations (like Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any documented issues or successes. Specific to this contract, understanding their track record in similar large-scale, multi-facility support roles would provide insight into their capability to manage the scope and complexity required. A review of past contract modifications, overruns, or terminations could also highlight potential risks or strengths. Without direct access to detailed performance reports for this specific contract's predecessor or similar contracts held by Bastion, a comprehensive assessment is limited, but general federal procurement data suggests they are an established contractor in this space.
How does the total contract value of $337 million compare to similar safety and mission assurance contracts awarded by NASA or other agencies for comparable facilities or missions?
The $337 million value over approximately 8 years places this contract in the category of significant, long-term support agreements. To benchmark effectively, one would compare it to other large contracts for safety, reliability, and mission assurance services supporting major aerospace facilities or complex R&D programs. For instance, contracts supporting the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), other NASA centers, or even Department of Defense space programs could serve as comparators. The 'per year' value is roughly $42 million, which is substantial but may be in line with the extensive requirements of supporting multiple major NASA centers. Factors like the scope of services (e.g., testing, analysis, systems engineering, risk management), the number of personnel required, and the criticality of the missions supported would influence comparability. Without specific details on comparable contract scopes, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high or low value, but it reflects a major investment in foundational support services.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are in place?
Primary risks include potential cost overruns due to the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, performance failures that could jeopardize mission safety or success, and contractor personnel issues (e.g., retention, expertise). Mitigation strategies likely involve robust NASA oversight, clearly defined performance metrics tied to award fees, regular audits, and stringent quality control processes. The CPAF structure itself is a mitigation tool, incentivizing the contractor to control costs while achieving high performance. NASA's contracting officers and technical teams are responsible for monitoring progress, identifying deviations, and enforcing contract terms. Furthermore, the requirement for 'safety and mission assurance' inherently means that risk management is a core deliverable, so the contractor is expected to have its own internal risk mitigation processes.
How effective has the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' approach been in ensuring competitive pricing and quality for this type of specialized service?
The effectiveness of 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' hinges on the justification for excluding specific sources and the overall market dynamics. This approach allows for broad competition while enabling the agency to pre-qualify or focus on bidders with specific, relevant capabilities, potentially streamlining the evaluation process. For specialized services like safety and mission assurance, where unique expertise is critical, this method can ensure that only highly qualified firms compete. The fact that three bids were received suggests a reasonable level of competition. However, if the exclusions were overly restrictive or based on criteria not directly tied to essential capabilities, it could limit price competition. A thorough review of the pre-qualification criteria and the number of potential bidders who were excluded would be necessary to fully assess its impact on price discovery and overall value for taxpayers.
What are the projected long-term implications of this contract on NASA's ability to achieve its strategic goals related to space exploration and scientific research?
This contract is foundational to NASA's ability to achieve its strategic goals. By ensuring the safety and reliability of missions, personnel, and facilities, it directly supports the success of complex endeavors like deep space exploration, satellite deployment, and scientific research. A failure in safety or mission assurance could lead to catastrophic mission loss, significant delays, budget overruns, and reputational damage, all of which would impede strategic progress. Conversely, effective execution by Bastion Technologies, Inc. enables NASA to pursue ambitious objectives with greater confidence. The contract's long duration suggests a strategic commitment to maintaining these critical support functions, indicating their perceived importance in enabling NASA's long-term vision for space exploration and scientific advancement.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › General Science and Technology R&D Services
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNM16577788R
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 17625 EL CAMINO REAL STE 330, HOUSTON, TX, 77058
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $370,986,918
Exercised Options: $370,986,917
Current Obligation: $337,254,777
Actual Outlays: $279,321,088
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 3
Total Subaward Amount: $29,097,076
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2017-11-01
Current End Date: 2025-12-31
Potential End Date: 2025-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-19
More Contracts from Bastion Technologies, Inc.
- Provide Support of the Safety and Mission Assurance Office AT Msfc, Stennis and Other Sites AS Needed — $237.4M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Task Order for Amcom Safety Office Support Services — $24.3M (Department of Defense)
- Engineering Directorate Configuration Mngmt — $16.8M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Initial Award — $14.3M (Department of Defense)
- Engineering Directorate Configuration Management — $12.9M (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 →