NASA contract for facility management services awarded to Wallops Executive Support Corp for over $12.4 million
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $12,432,885 ($12.4M)
Contractor: Wallops Executive Support Corp
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2002-11-15
End Date: 2012-11-30
Contract Duration: 3,668 days
Daily Burn Rate: $3.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 51
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: OPERATION & MANAGEMENT OF THE NASA/GSFC/WFF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION CENTER (MEC).
Place of Performance
Location: WALLOPS ISLAND, ACCOMACK County, VIRGINIA, 23337
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $12.4 million to WALLOPS EXECUTIVE SUPPORT CORP for work described as: OPERATION & MANAGEMENT OF THE NASA/GSFC/WFF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION CENTER (MEC). Key points: 1. The contract value suggests a significant investment in operational support for NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. 2. The duration of the contract (over 10 years) indicates a long-term need for these services. 3. The fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty but could limit flexibility for scope changes. 4. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 5. The services provided fall under Office Administrative Services, a broad category that supports facility operations.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of over $12.4 million for facility management services over a 10-year period appears substantial. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for NASA facilities or comparable government installations would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. Without specific details on the scope of services (e.g., janitorial, security, administrative support, maintenance), it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is competitive. However, the long duration and fixed-price nature suggest a potentially stable, albeit possibly less flexible, cost structure.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 51 bids suggests a highly competitive environment. A large number of bidders typically drives down prices and encourages innovation as contractors vie for the award. This level of competition is generally favorable for the government in terms of achieving best value.
Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition award. It suggests that taxpayer funds were used efficiently to secure these essential facility management services.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA personnel at the Wallops Flight Facility, who receive support services enabling mission operations. The contract delivers essential operational and management services for the Wallops Executive Support Center. The geographic impact is localized to NASA's Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia. The contract supports administrative and management roles, potentially impacting the local workforce in Virginia.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration (over 10 years) could lead to contractor complacency or reduced responsiveness if not actively managed.
- Fixed-price contract may not adequately account for unforeseen operational challenges or scope creep, potentially leading to disputes or cost overruns if not carefully defined.
- The broad nature of 'Office Administrative Services' could mask specific performance risks if not clearly delineated in the SOW.
- Reliance on a single contractor for over a decade may reduce market options for future needs.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition with 51 bids, indicating strong market interest and likely competitive pricing.
- The long duration suggests a stable and reliable service provider, crucial for ongoing facility operations.
- Fixed-price contract provides budget predictability for NASA.
- The contract is managed by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, a reputable agency with established oversight processes.
Sector Analysis
The contract falls within the administrative and support services sector, specifically supporting government facilities. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561110 (Office Administrative Services) encompasses a wide range of support functions. The market for such services is large and diverse, with numerous private sector companies capable of providing these essential operations. This contract represents a portion of the broader federal spending on facility operations and management, which is a significant category across various agencies.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits to the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The primary contractor, Wallops Executive Support Corp, is likely a larger entity or a joint venture that successfully competed for this significant contract.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), specifically the contracting officer and program managers responsible for the Wallops Flight Facility. Accountability is typically managed through performance metrics, service level agreements, and regular reporting requirements outlined in the contract. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, although detailed performance data may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facility Operations Contracts
- Government Administrative Support Services
- Federal Office Management Contracts
- Wallops Flight Facility Support Services
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may reduce agility.
- Fixed-price nature could limit scope flexibility.
- Potential for contractor complacency over time.
Tags
nasa, facility-management, office-administrative-services, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, virginia, long-term-contract, support-services, federal-contract, gsfc, wff
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $12.4 million to WALLOPS EXECUTIVE SUPPORT CORP. OPERATION & MANAGEMENT OF THE NASA/GSFC/WFF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION CENTER (MEC).
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is WALLOPS EXECUTIVE SUPPORT CORP.
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 $12.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2002-11-15. End: 2012-11-30.
What is the specific scope of 'Office Administrative Services' covered under this contract?
The provided data indicates the contract is for the 'OPERATION & MANAGEMENT OF THE NASA/GSFC/WFF MANAGEMENT EDUCATION CENTER (MEC)'. While the NAICS code is 561110 (Office Administrative Services), the specific deliverables are not detailed in the summary data. Typically, such services for a management education center could include administrative support, facility maintenance coordination, scheduling, event management, procurement assistance, and potentially IT support liaison. A comprehensive review of the Statement of Work (SOW) within the contract documents would be necessary to ascertain the precise scope and ensure it aligns with the awarded value and competitive landscape.
How does the awarded value compare to similar NASA facility management contracts?
The awarded value of approximately $12.4 million over a period exceeding 10 years (3668 days) translates to an average annual value of roughly $1.3 million. To benchmark this effectively, one would need to compare it against contracts for similar-sized NASA facilities or comparable government installations that require comprehensive operational and management services. Factors such as the facility's size, complexity, geographic location, and the specific services required (e.g., security, maintenance, administrative staff) heavily influence pricing. Without access to a database of comparable contracts with detailed scope and pricing, a precise comparison is challenging. However, the high number of bids (51) suggests the market perceived the opportunity as reasonably valued.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance?
The provided summary data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. However, for a contract focused on facility operation and management, typical KPIs would likely include metrics related to facility uptime and maintenance response times, cleanliness and upkeep standards, energy efficiency targets, safety compliance, administrative support responsiveness (e.g., response time for requests), and potentially customer satisfaction surveys from NASA personnel utilizing the center. The contract's performance clauses would detail these metrics, along with associated award fees or penalties.
What is the historical spending trend for facility management at NASA's Wallops Flight Facility?
The provided data pertains to a single contract awarded in 2002 and ending in 2012. To understand historical spending trends, one would need to examine all prior and subsequent contracts related to the operation and management of the Wallops Flight Facility or its components, such as the Management Education Center. Analyzing spending over multiple contract cycles, including the number of bidders and award values for each, would reveal trends in cost, competition, and potential shifts in service requirements or contractor performance over time.
What is the potential impact of the fixed-price contract type on cost and flexibility?
A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, like the one awarded here, obligates the contractor to perform the work for a predetermined price, regardless of the actual costs incurred. This offers significant cost certainty for the government, making budgeting more predictable. However, it can reduce flexibility. If NASA requires changes to the scope of services or encounters unforeseen issues, contract modifications (change orders) would be necessary, potentially leading to negotiations and increased costs. Conversely, the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, incentivizing them to manage resources efficiently. For long-term contracts, the initial price must be carefully set to account for potential risks and inflation.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Office Administrative Services › Office Administrative Services
Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 51
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Address: 33320 CHINCOTEAGUE RD, WALLOPS ISLAND, VA, 02
Business Categories: Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $12,818,242
Exercised Options: $12,818,242
Current Obligation: $12,432,885
Timeline
Start Date: 2002-11-15
Current End Date: 2012-11-30
Potential End Date: 2012-11-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2012-12-21
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 →