NASA's $86M Mars Ascent Propulsion System contract awarded to Northrop Grumman without competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $86,135,452 ($86.1M)
Contractor: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2021-03-04
End Date: 2025-09-30
Contract Duration: 1,671 days
Daily Burn Rate: $51.5K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: MARS ASCENT PROPULSION SYSTEM (MAPS)
Place of Performance
Location: ELKTON, CECIL County, MARYLAND, 21921
State: Maryland Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $86.1 million to NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION for work described as: MARS ASCENT PROPULSION SYSTEM (MAPS) Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, indicating potential for cost overruns. 2. Sole-source award limits price discovery and may not represent the best value. 3. Long contract duration (over 5 years) increases exposure to market fluctuations. 4. The propulsion system is critical for Mars sample return missions, highlighting its strategic importance. 5. Lack of competition raises concerns about contractor performance incentives. 6. The contract value is substantial for a specialized aerospace component.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, combined with a sole-source award, makes a direct value-for-money assessment difficult without further data on cost drivers and profit margins. Benchmarking against similar propulsion system development contracts is challenging due to the specialized nature of this system for Mars missions. The fixed fee component provides some cost control, but the overall cost is subject to the actual costs incurred by the contractor.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning NASA did not solicit bids from multiple potential suppliers. This approach is typically used when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement, often due to proprietary technology, unique expertise, or urgent needs. The absence of competition means there was no direct price comparison, potentially leading to a higher cost than if multiple companies had bid.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may be paying a premium due to the lack of competitive pressure to drive down costs. Without a competitive bidding process, it is harder to ensure that NASA is receiving the most cost-effective solution available.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA's Mars exploration programs, specifically the Mars Ascent Propulsion System (MAPS) for the Mars Sample Return mission. The contract delivers a critical component for enabling the return of Martian samples to Earth. Geographic impact is primarily at Northrop Grumman's facilities and NASA research centers involved in the mission. Workforce implications include specialized engineering and manufacturing jobs within the aerospace sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential for cost savings.
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize higher spending if not closely monitored.
- Long contract duration increases exposure to potential cost escalations and technological obsolescence.
- Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification could mask underlying issues.
- Dependence on a single contractor for a critical mission component poses a supply chain risk.
Positive Signals
- Award to an established aerospace contractor with relevant experience.
- Contract supports a high-priority scientific mission with significant national interest.
- Fixed fee component provides some level of cost predictability for the contractor's profit.
- Clear end date for the contract, providing a defined project lifecycle.
Sector Analysis
The aerospace propulsion sector is highly specialized, characterized by significant R&D investment, stringent quality control, and long development cycles. Contracts for space exploration components are often awarded to a limited number of experienced firms due to the technical expertise and infrastructure required. NASA's spending in this area is driven by ambitious exploration goals, with propulsion systems being a fundamental element for mission success. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of interplanetary propulsion systems.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to involve small business set-asides, as indicated by the 'sb': false field. The prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, is a large aerospace corporation. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. The focus is on a large, specialized system likely requiring the capabilities of major aerospace manufacturers, potentially limiting direct opportunities for small businesses unless they are part of the larger supply chain.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's internal procurement and program management offices. Given the sole-source nature and critical mission aspect, rigorous technical and financial oversight is expected. Transparency may be limited due to the proprietary nature of some technologies involved. The Inspector General's office at NASA would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.
Related Government Programs
- Mars Sample Return Mission
- Space Launch System (SLS)
- Advanced Propulsion Technologies
- NASA Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
- Critical mission component dependency
- Long contract duration
Tags
nasa, northrop-grumman, mars-exploration, propulsion-systems, r&d, sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee, aerospace, space-exploration, definitive-contract, maryland
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $86.1 million to NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION. MARS ASCENT PROPULSION SYSTEM (MAPS)
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION.
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 $86.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2021-03-04. End: 2025-09-30.
What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?
The provided data does not explicitly state the justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are justified when only one responsible source is available to meet the agency's needs. This could be due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or the need to maintain compatibility with existing systems. For the Mars Ascent Propulsion System (MAPS), the justification likely centers on Northrop Grumman's unique expertise and existing development work related to advanced propulsion systems required for the specific mission profile of the Mars Sample Return program. A detailed justification document would normally be available through NASA's contract award notices.
How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for similar aerospace development projects?
Cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts are common in aerospace development, especially for projects with high technical uncertainty or evolving requirements, like the MAPS. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. This structure shifts some cost risk to the government compared to fixed-price contracts. However, it provides flexibility for the contractor to adapt to unforeseen technical challenges. Compared to fixed-price incentive (FPI) contracts, CPFF offers less incentive for the contractor to control costs strictly, as the fee is fixed regardless of the final cost. For highly innovative or early-stage development, CPFF can be appropriate, but it requires robust government oversight to manage costs effectively.
What are the key performance metrics and milestones for this contract?
The provided data does not detail the specific performance metrics or milestones for the MARS ASCENT PROPULSION SYSTEM (MAPS) contract. However, for a critical component like this, key performance metrics would likely include thrust, specific impulse, reliability, mass, and operational lifespan under Martian conditions. Milestones would typically involve design reviews (e.g., Preliminary Design Review, Critical Design Review), component testing, subsystem integration, system-level testing, and delivery of flight-qualified hardware. NASA's program office would closely monitor progress against these technical and schedule milestones to ensure the system meets the demanding requirements of the Mars Sample Return mission.
What is the historical spending trend for the Mars Ascent Propulsion System or similar propulsion technologies?
Historical spending data specifically for the Mars Ascent Propulsion System (MAPS) is not provided. However, the development of advanced propulsion systems for space exploration is a significant and ongoing investment for agencies like NASA. Costs can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the complexity, technology readiness level, and mission objectives. For instance, the development of engines for NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) involved billions of dollars. Investments in Mars-specific technologies, including ascent vehicles, are crucial for ambitious goals like sample return, indicating a sustained commitment to this area of R&D.
What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single contractor for this critical component?
Relying on a single contractor, Northrop Grumman in this case, for the Mars Ascent Propulsion System (MAPS) introduces several risks. Firstly, there's a lack of competitive pressure, which could lead to less cost-effective solutions and potentially higher prices over the contract's life. Secondly, if Northrop Grumman faces production issues, technical difficulties, or financial instability, it could significantly delay or jeopardize the entire Mars Sample Return mission due to the absence of alternative suppliers. Thirdly, knowledge transfer and redundancy are limited, making the program highly dependent on the contractor's institutional knowledge and workforce. This sole-source dependency necessitates extremely close monitoring and strong relationship management by NASA.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Solicitation ID: 80MSFC20R00008
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Northrop Grumman Corporation
Address: 55 THIOKOL RD, ELKTON, MD, 21921
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $91,946,261
Exercised Options: $91,946,261
Current Obligation: $86,135,452
Actual Outlays: $79,087,279
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 29
Total Subaward Amount: $4,103,991
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2021-03-04
Current End Date: 2025-09-30
Potential End Date: 2025-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-09-30
More Contracts from Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation
- 200506!000026!5700!fa8214!oo-Alc/Pkme/Lmke !F4261098C0001 !A!N! !Y! !p01502!20041213!20050701!001563738!004179453!016435559!n!northrop Grumman Space & Missi!888 S 2000 E !clearfield !ut!84015!13850!011!49!clearfield !davis !utah !-000001960000!n!n!000000000000!l014!tech REP Svcs/Guided Missiles !A2 !missile and Space Systems !302 !minuteman III GRP !541330!E! !3! ! !C! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !a!n!l!2!002!b! !Z!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $10.0B (Department of Defense)
- E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Aircraft (FRP-7) — $8.5B (Department of Defense)
- E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Aircraft (FRP-2) — $5.4B (Department of Defense)
- First DDT and E, Ares I-X, and Flight Tests. First Stage Will BE a Five Segment, Solid Rocket Booster Derived From the Space Shuttle Program (SSP) Solid Rocket Booster (srb)/Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (rsrm). the Contractor Shall Furnish the Necessary Management, Engineering, Labor, Facilities, Tools, Equipment, and Materials Required for First Stage Development, Qualification, Certification and Acceptance Program. Activities Include: Redesign and Testing of the Motor to Incorporate the Fifth Segment and Production of Five Full Scale Ground Static Test Motors: TWO Development Motors (dms)-And Three Qualification Motors (QMS); Structural Test Article (STA), Ground Vibration Test Motors (gvtms) and Other Development Testing; Redesign of the Avionics, Deceleration, Separation, and Flight Termination System (FTS) Subsystems; Ares I-X: Simulated Ares I Outer Mold Line/Mass Properties Using Modified Srb/Rsrm; and Three Flight Test Vehicles. TAS::80 0124::TAS — $4.4B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Federal Contract — $4.4B (Department of Defense)
View all Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation federal contracts →
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 →