NASA awards $1.8M contract for tensile testing load frame to Jackson Bond Enterprises, LLC
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $184,566 ($184.6K)
Contractor: Jackson Bond Enterprises, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2026-04-13
End Date: 2027-07-12
Contract Duration: 455 days
Daily Burn Rate: $406/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: PHASE III SBIR 80NSSC26C0003 TENSILE TESTING LOAD FRAME PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION
Place of Performance
Location: DOVER, STRAFFORD County, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 03820
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $184,566 to JACKSON BOND ENTERPRISES, LLC for work described as: PHASE III SBIR 80NSSC26C0003 TENSILE TESTING LOAD FRAME PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION Key points: 1. Contract awarded for specialized research equipment, supporting physical and engineering sciences. 2. The contract is a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, indicating clear cost expectations. 3. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, suggesting a deliberate procurement process. 4. The contract duration is 455 days, aligning with typical project timelines for R&D equipment. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715 points to R&D services. 6. The awardee, Jackson Bond Enterprises, LLC, is a small business, potentially indicating a focus on supporting smaller contractors.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $1.84 million for a tensile testing load frame and installation appears within a reasonable range for specialized scientific equipment. Benchmarking against similar procurements for advanced testing apparatus is necessary for a definitive value assessment. The firm fixed price structure suggests that the contractor bears the primary risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if the scope is well-defined.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This specific designation implies that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded for reasons not fully detailed in the provided data. The number of bidders is not specified, making it difficult to assess the breadth of competition. This procurement method warrants further investigation to understand the rationale behind source exclusion and its potential impact on price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even within a full and open framework, could potentially limit competitive pressure and may not have secured the absolute best price for taxpayers. A more transparent and broadly open competition would typically yield greater price benefits.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA researchers and scientists who will utilize the tensile testing load frame for physical and engineering experiments. The contract will deliver a critical piece of laboratory equipment essential for materials testing and analysis. The geographic impact is localized to the NASA facility where the equipment will be installed and operated. Workforce implications include the installation and potential maintenance personnel required for the load frame.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of detailed information on the 'exclusion of sources' in the competition process raises concerns about potential limitations on competitive pricing.
- The specific technical requirements and performance standards of the load frame are not detailed, making it difficult to assess if the selected equipment represents the best value.
- The absence of data on the number of bidders prevents a thorough analysis of the competitive landscape and its impact on the final price.
Positive Signals
- The contract utilizes a firm fixed price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor and provides budget certainty.
- The awardee, Jackson Bond Enterprises, LLC, is identified as a small business, aligning with federal goals to support small business participation.
- The contract is for a definitive contract, suggesting a clear scope of work and delivery timeline.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical and engineering sciences. The market for specialized scientific equipment like tensile testing load frames is typically characterized by a limited number of manufacturers and suppliers capable of meeting stringent technical specifications. NASA's procurement of such equipment is crucial for advancing its scientific and engineering capabilities, often involving high-value, low-volume purchases that require specialized expertise.
Small Business Impact
While the awardee, Jackson Bond Enterprises, LLC, is a small business, the contract details do not indicate if this was a small business set-aside. The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' clause suggests a broader competition was initially considered. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities for other small businesses are anticipated or required under this contract.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's contracting officer and program management. The firm fixed price nature provides some level of financial oversight by capping the government's expenditure. Transparency regarding the specific reasons for excluding certain sources would enhance accountability. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program
- Materials Science Research Equipment Procurements
- Federal Scientific Instrument Acquisition
Risk Flags
- Limited Competition Transparency
- Unspecified Technical Specifications
- Lack of Bidder Count Data
Tags
research-and-development, nasa, national-aeronautics-and-space-administration, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, new-hampshire, small-business, r-and-d-in-physical-engineering-life-sciences, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $184,566 to JACKSON BOND ENTERPRISES, LLC. PHASE III SBIR 80NSSC26C0003 TENSILE TESTING LOAD FRAME PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is JACKSON BOND ENTERPRISES, LLC.
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 $184,566.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2026-04-13. End: 2027-07-12.
What is the specific technical capability and performance standard of the tensile testing load frame being procured?
The provided data does not specify the exact technical capabilities or performance standards of the tensile testing load frame. This information is critical for a thorough assessment of the contract's value and suitability for NASA's research objectives. Without these details, it is difficult to benchmark the procured equipment against industry standards or determine if it represents the most advanced or cost-effective solution for the intended applications. Future analysis should seek the Statement of Work (SOW) or technical specifications to evaluate the equipment's adequacy and potential for innovation.
What were the specific reasons for excluding certain sources in this 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement?
The rationale behind the exclusion of specific sources in this procurement is not detailed in the provided data. This procurement method, while allowing for broad competition, permits the exclusion of certain offerors based on predefined criteria, such as national security concerns, specific technological capabilities, or prior performance issues. Understanding these exclusion criteria is vital for assessing whether the competition was truly optimized for achieving the best value for taxpayers. A lack of transparency in this regard could suggest potential limitations on competition and may warrant further investigation by oversight bodies to ensure fairness and maximize cost-effectiveness.
How does the $1.84 million contract value compare to similar tensile testing load frame procurements by other federal agencies or within NASA?
Benchmarking the $1.84 million contract value against similar tensile testing load frame procurements is essential for assessing value for money. Without access to a database of comparable federal contracts, a precise comparison is challenging. However, advanced tensile testing equipment, especially when including installation and specialized features, can represent a significant investment. Factors such as load capacity, testing speed, environmental controls, data acquisition systems, and brand reputation heavily influence pricing. A preliminary assessment suggests the value is plausible for high-end research-grade equipment, but a detailed comparative analysis of specifications and pricing from similar procurements would be necessary for a definitive conclusion on cost-effectiveness.
What is the track record of Jackson Bond Enterprises, LLC in fulfilling federal contracts, particularly those involving complex scientific equipment?
Information regarding the specific track record of Jackson Bond Enterprises, LLC in fulfilling federal contracts, especially those involving complex scientific equipment, is not provided in the summary data. As a small business, their experience with large-scale R&D procurements would be a key factor in assessing performance risk. A review of their past performance ratings, contract history (including any past performance issues or successes), and demonstrated expertise in delivering similar technical solutions would be necessary to evaluate their capability to successfully execute this contract. This information is typically available through federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS.
What are the potential risks associated with the 455-day contract duration and the firm fixed price payment structure?
The 455-day duration for this contract is relatively standard for the procurement and installation of specialized equipment. The primary risk associated with the firm fixed price (FFP) structure is the potential for scope creep or unforeseen technical challenges that could lead to contractor cost overruns, potentially impacting delivery or quality if not managed effectively. Conversely, FFP is advantageous for the government as it provides budget certainty. Risks for the government under FFP primarily revolve around ensuring the initial scope is precisely defined to avoid change orders and that the contractor has the capability to deliver within the fixed price. The exclusion of sources also introduces a risk that the chosen contractor may not be the most competitive option available.
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
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 39 INDUSTRIAL PARK, DOVER, NH, 03820
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $184,566
Exercised Options: $184,566
Current Obligation: $184,566
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2026-04-13
Current End Date: 2027-07-12
Potential End Date: 2027-07-12 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-04-10
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 →