NASA's $32.7M NMSP Engineering & Technology Support Services contract awarded to Peraton Inc. shows competitive dynamics
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $32,684,420 ($32.7M)
Contractor: Peraton Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 1999-12-15
End Date: 2003-08-08
Contract Duration: 1,332 days
Daily Burn Rate: $24.5K/day
Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER
Number of Offers Received: 51
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: IT
Official Description: NETWORK & MISSION SERVICES PROJECT(NMSP) ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: RESTON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20190
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $32.7 million to PERATON INC. for work described as: NETWORK & MISSION SERVICES PROJECT(NMSP) ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded through a competitive delivery order, indicating multiple bids were considered. 2. The contract duration of 1332 days suggests a need for sustained engineering and technology support. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type helps manage cost certainty for the agency. 4. The NAICS code 541519 points to a broad range of computer-related services. 5. The contract was awarded to Peraton Inc., a significant player in the government contracting space. 6. The total award value of $32.7M over approximately 3.6 years implies substantial resource allocation. 7. The contract was issued by NASA, a high-profile agency with complex technological needs.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The total award of $32.7 million for engineering and technology support services over approximately 3.6 years appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar IT support contracts for large federal agencies like NASA suggests that Peraton's pricing, while not explicitly detailed here, likely falls within an expected range for specialized technical expertise. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost control for the government, mitigating the risk of cost overruns associated with time and materials contracts.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded as a Competitive Delivery Order, indicating that it was competed under a broader contract vehicle that allowed for full and open competition. The presence of 51 bids suggests a robust level of interest and a competitive environment. This high number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government, as contractors vie to win the award.
Taxpayer Impact: The high number of bids received for this contract suggests that taxpayers benefited from competitive pricing, as multiple companies likely offered their services, driving down costs. This level of competition helps ensure that federal funds are used efficiently.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries of this contract are NASA's various engineering and technology programs, which receive essential support services. The services delivered include a broad range of computer-related support, crucial for the agency's mission. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around NASA facilities, particularly in Virginia where the contract was issued. The contract supports a specialized workforce of engineers and technologists, contributing to the high-tech sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for vendor lock-in if Peraton becomes indispensable to critical NASA systems.
- Risk of scope creep if the definition of 'engineering and technology support' is not tightly managed.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical support functions could pose a risk if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive selection process.
- Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty and budget predictability.
- The contract duration suggests a stable, long-term need for these services, implying consistent support.
- The high number of bids (51) points to a healthy competitive market for these services.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the broader Information Technology and Professional Services sector, specifically focusing on computer systems design and related services. The market for such services supporting federal agencies is substantial, with numerous companies offering specialized engineering and technology expertise. NASA, as a major technology-driven agency, frequently procures these types of services to maintain and advance its complex systems. Comparable spending benchmarks for IT support services at agencies of NASA's size often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Small Business Impact
There is no indication that this contract was specifically set aside for small businesses, nor is there information suggesting significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The award to Peraton Inc., a large prime contractor, suggests that the primary focus was on securing specialized capabilities, potentially from larger firms. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small business participation was mandated or occurred organically through subcontracting.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers, who are responsible for ensuring performance and adherence to contract terms. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which penalizes cost overruns by the contractor. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific performance metrics may not always be publicly disclosed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA IT Support Services
- Federal Engineering Services
- Technology Consulting Contracts
- Computer Systems Design Services
- Aerospace Engineering Support
Risk Flags
- Potential for vendor lock-in
- Risk of scope creep
- Dependence on single contractor
Tags
nasa, it-services, engineering-support, technology-support, competitive-delivery-order, firm-fixed-price, peraton-inc, nasa-headquarters, virginia, large-contract, professional-services, computer-related-services
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $32.7 million to PERATON INC.. NETWORK & MISSION SERVICES PROJECT(NMSP) ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is PERATON 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 $32.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-12-15. End: 2003-08-08.
What is Peraton Inc.'s track record with NASA and similar federal agencies for providing engineering and technology support services?
Peraton Inc. has a significant history of contracting with NASA and other federal agencies, often securing large, complex IT and mission support contracts. Their track record generally includes providing a wide array of services, from cybersecurity and network operations to systems engineering and cloud migration. While specific performance details for this particular NMSP contract are not publicly detailed, Peraton's overall profile suggests they are a capable provider for demanding government requirements. However, like any large contractor, they may have faced scrutiny or performance issues on specific contracts, necessitating careful review of past performance data available through federal procurement databases and agency reports.
How does the $32.7 million award value compare to similar engineering and technology support contracts awarded by NASA or other agencies of comparable size?
The $32.7 million award value for this 1332-day (approx. 3.6 years) contract is within a reasonable range for specialized engineering and technology support services procured by a major federal agency like NASA. Large-scale IT and engineering support contracts for agencies such as the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or other science and technology-focused organizations can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars over similar or longer durations. Factors influencing this value include the complexity of the services, the required skill sets, the number of personnel involved, and the specific technological domains supported. Given the competitive nature of the award and the firm fixed-price structure, it suggests that the pricing was deemed fair and reasonable at the time of award.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are likely in place?
Primary risks for this contract include potential scope creep, where the definition of 'engineering and technology support' might expand beyond initial intentions, leading to cost increases or schedule delays. Another risk is contractor performance, where Peraton Inc. might not meet the required service levels, impacting NASA's operations. Dependence on a single contractor for critical functions also poses a risk. Mitigation strategies likely include robust contract management by NASA, clear definition of deliverables and performance standards, regular performance reviews, and potentially incorporating service level agreements (SLAs) with penalties for non-compliance. The firm fixed-price nature also incentivizes the contractor to manage costs and scope effectively.
How effective has Peraton Inc. been in delivering similar services under previous contracts, and what is the evidence?
Evidence of Peraton Inc.'s effectiveness in delivering similar services is typically found in past performance evaluations submitted during recompetes or available through federal procurement data systems like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). While specific details for this NMSP contract are not provided, Peraton's consistent awards for large government contracts suggest a general level of satisfaction with their performance. However, a thorough assessment would require examining CPARS reports, agency debriefs, and any publicly available performance reviews related to their IT and engineering support work for NASA and other agencies.
What are the historical spending patterns for engineering and technology support services at NASA, and how does this contract fit within them?
NASA historically spends significant amounts on engineering, research, development, and technology support services to fulfill its complex missions. Spending patterns vary year-to-year based on program needs, budget allocations, and major project cycles. This $32.7 million contract for NMSP engineering and technology support represents a specific allocation for a defined set of services over a multi-year period. It fits within NASA's broader strategy of leveraging external expertise for specialized technical functions, allowing the agency to focus its internal resources on core mission objectives. Analyzing historical NASA spending data would reveal trends in IT, aerospace engineering, and R&D support, contextualizing this contract's size and purpose.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Other Computer Related Services
Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER
Offers Received: 51
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: ITT Corporation (UEI: 001216845)
Address: 1761 BUS CTR DR STE 200, RESTON, VA, 11
Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Woman Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $38,383,090
Exercised Options: $38,383,090
Current Obligation: $32,684,420
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: GS35F0109J
IDV Type: FSS
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-12-15
Current End Date: 2003-08-08
Potential End Date: 2003-08-08 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-09-21
More Contracts from Peraton Inc.
- 200107!000034!5700!GZ80 !smc/Pks !F0470101C0001 !A!N!*!Y! !20001103!20061031!052819732!052819732!001216845!n!itt Industries, Inc , Systems !4410 E Fountain Blvd !colorado Sprin !co!80916!16000!041!08!colorado Springs !EL Paso !colorado !+000016429445!n!n!000000000000!ac26!rdte/Missile and Space Systems-Mgmt Support !A2 !missile and Space Systems !3000!NOT Discernable or Classified !541710!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!B! !A !Y!R!2!003!B! !A!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !c!c!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! — $1.7B (Department of Defense)
- THE Exploration and Space Communications Projects Division (ESC) IS a National Resource Located AT Goddard Space Flight Center (gsfc) Which Enables Scientific Discovery and Space Exploration by Providing Innovative and Mission-Effective Space Communications and Navigation Solutions to a Large Community of Diverse Customers. ESC Manages Operational Geostationary Communications Relay Satellites and Ground Systems for the Space Communications and Navigation (scan) Program AT Nasa Headquarters. Today, Scan Network Systems Consist of the Space Network (SN), the Near Earth Network (NEN), and the Deep Space Network (DSN). the Day-To-Day Management of These Three Networks IS Currently NOT Fully Consistent. IT IS the Intention of the Government to Unify the SN and NEN Where Practicable Under This Contract Using Integrated, Common Management Practices and Network Solutions — $1.5B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center's (gsfc) Goal for the Space Communications Networks Services Contract (scns) IS to Enable Mission Success for Every Customer Using Scns Services. KEY Objectives of the Scns Contract ARE to Decrease Cost and Maintain or Improve Operational Efficiency and Reliability, While Maintaining an Acceptable Level of Risk and Providing for Safe Operation of the Missions. the Contractor Shall Implement a Safety, Health, and Mission Assurance Program That Provides a Safe and Healthy Work Environment, Minimizes Program Risk, and Maximizes Nasa Mission Success. the Contractor Shall BE Responsible and Accountable for Achieving the Required Results. Core Requirement Functions, Such AS Configuration Management, Quality Assurance, ETC. ARE Required to Support Idiq Task Orders. the Space Network (SN) IS Comprised of a Fleet of On-Orbit Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (tdrs) and Associated Ground Systems That Provide Telecommunications Services. the Nature of the SN Architecture, I.E., Extremely Large Capital Investment, Contractor Operated Facilities, Continuous 24X7 Requirements, ETC., Lends Itself to a Core Requirements Approach. the Ground Network (GN) Consists of an Orbital Tracking Network and the Satellite Laser Ranging Network. the Nature of the Ground Network Architecture, I.E., Diverse MIX of Commercial and Government Assets, Evolving Geographic and Technical Customer Requirements, and Legacy Systems, ETC. Lends Itself to an Idiq Approach. Other Activities, I.E., Very Long Baseline Interferometry Network Operations and Maintenance (O&M), Electronic System Test Laboratory, Requirements Development, Hardware and Software Development, ETC. ARE Best Suited to an Idiq Approach in the Resource-Constrained Environment That Nasa Operates in — $1.2B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Operational Planning Implementation and Assessment Services (opias) Base Award — $800.8M (General Services Administration)
- Sitec 3 EOM Provides Ussocom With O&M Services to Maintain Netops, Maintain Systems & Network Infrastructure, Provide END User & Common Device Support, Provide Configuration, Change, License, & Asset Mgmt. Conduct Training and Perform Imacs Services — $651.0M (General Services 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 →