NASA's $12M GE Propulsion Contract for Critical Noise Reduction Shows Long-Term Investment in Aviation Technology
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $11,971,341 ($12.0M)
Contractor: General Electric Company
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2000-01-15
End Date: 2004-04-30
Contract Duration: 1,567 days
Daily Burn Rate: $7.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST NO FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: CRITICAL PROPULSION AND NOIS REDUCTION T
Place of Performance
Location: CINCINNATI, HAMILTON County, OHIO, 45215
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $12.0 million to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY for work described as: CRITICAL PROPULSION AND NOIS REDUCTION T Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in advanced propulsion technology, focusing on noise reduction, a key environmental and operational concern in aviation. 2. Competition dynamics for this specialized technology likely favored experienced, high-capability providers, potentially limiting the number of bidders. 3. The contract's duration and cost suggest a complex, long-term project requiring substantial technical expertise and resources. 4. Performance context is crucial; success hinges on achieving specific noise reduction targets and ensuring reliable propulsion system operation. 5. This contract positions General Electric as a key player in the aerospace sector, particularly in engine technology and environmental performance. 6. The 'Cost No Fee' contract type indicates a focus on achieving project goals rather than profit maximization for the contractor, aligning incentives with the agency's objectives.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
Benchmarking this specific contract is challenging due to its specialized nature and the long-term investment in advanced propulsion technology. However, the 'Cost No Fee' structure suggests an alignment of incentives between NASA and General Electric, aiming for successful project completion over profit. The total award of approximately $12 million over a roughly four-year period indicates a substantial but potentially reasonable investment for developing critical noise reduction capabilities in aerospace engines.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of two bids indicates a degree of competition, though the specialized nature of advanced propulsion systems might naturally limit the pool of highly capable offerors. This level of competition is generally positive for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive proposals.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders for highly specialized contracts, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing and technical solutions.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the aerospace industry and the public through quieter aircraft operations, leading to reduced noise pollution in communities near airports. The services delivered involve the development and testing of advanced propulsion technologies aimed at significantly reducing engine noise. The geographic impact is primarily national, supporting the U.S. aerospace manufacturing base and potentially influencing global aviation standards. Workforce implications include employment for highly skilled engineers, technicians, and researchers within General Electric and its supply chain.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen technical challenges arise in developing noise reduction technology.
- Risk of technology obsolescence if advancements in competing propulsion systems outpace development.
- Dependence on a single contractor (GE) for critical propulsion technology development could pose long-term supply chain risks.
Positive Signals
- Strong track record of General Electric in aerospace engine development provides a positive signal for technical execution.
- The 'Cost No Fee' contract structure aligns contractor incentives with NASA's mission objectives for noise reduction.
- Full and open competition, even with limited bidders, suggests a structured procurement process aimed at achieving value.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on aircraft engine technology. The market for advanced aerospace propulsion systems is characterized by high barriers to entry, significant R&D investment, and a limited number of major global players like General Electric. NASA's investment in noise reduction aligns with broader industry trends and regulatory pressures to develop more environmentally friendly aviation solutions. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve R&D contracts for new engine designs or significant upgrades, often in the multi-million dollar range.
Small Business Impact
There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides. Given the highly specialized and advanced nature of propulsion system development, it is unlikely that small businesses would be primary awardees for the core technology development. However, opportunities may exist for small businesses to participate as subcontractors to General Electric, providing components or specialized services.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). NASA's procurement and program management offices would monitor progress, technical milestones, and financial expenditures. The 'Cost No Fee' structure implies that NASA bears the direct costs of the effort, necessitating close oversight to ensure efficient resource utilization. Transparency would be maintained through regular reporting requirements from the contractor and internal NASA reviews.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
- Advanced Airframe and Propulsion Systems
- Environmental Aviation Technology Programs
- FAA Noise Reduction Initiatives
Risk Flags
- Long-term technology development contracts carry inherent risks of technical challenges and potential cost overruns.
- Dependence on a single, large contractor for critical technology may limit future competitive options.
- The specialized nature of the technology could make it difficult to benchmark against broader market rates.
Tags
nasa, general-electric, aerospace, propulsion-systems, noise-reduction, research-and-development, cost-no-fee, full-and-open-competition, aviation-technology, ohio, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $12.0 million to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. CRITICAL PROPULSION AND NOIS REDUCTION T
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.
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 $12.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2000-01-15. End: 2004-04-30.
What is General Electric's historical performance with NASA on similar propulsion development contracts?
General Electric has a long and extensive history of collaborating with NASA on various propulsion-related projects, including engine development, testing, and research. Their track record includes contributions to numerous NASA missions and programs, often involving complex and cutting-edge technologies. While specific performance metrics for past contracts are not detailed here, GE's sustained role as a major aerospace contractor with NASA suggests a generally positive and reliable partnership. Their deep expertise in engine design and manufacturing positions them as a go-to entity for critical propulsion advancements, including those focused on noise reduction and efficiency.
How does the $12 million award compare to typical R&D spending for advanced aerospace propulsion systems?
The $12 million award for this specific noise reduction technology development represents a moderate investment within the broader landscape of advanced aerospace propulsion R&D. Major engine development programs for new aircraft can easily run into hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. However, for targeted research and development efforts focused on specific technological advancements, such as noise reduction, a $12 million contract over approximately four years is a substantial commitment. It indicates a focused effort to achieve specific performance improvements rather than a complete engine redesign. This level of funding is consistent with advanced technology demonstration projects aimed at maturing key capabilities for future integration.
What are the primary technical risks associated with developing critical noise reduction technologies for jet engines?
Developing critical noise reduction technologies for jet engines involves several significant technical risks. One primary risk is achieving substantial noise reduction without compromising engine performance, such as thrust, fuel efficiency, or weight. Innovations in acoustic liners, fan designs, and nozzle geometries can sometimes lead to trade-offs in these areas. Another risk is the durability and reliability of new components or materials designed for noise suppression; these must withstand extreme temperatures, pressures, and stresses over extended operational periods. Furthermore, scaling laboratory or component-level advancements to full engine integration presents challenges, as interactions between different parts of the engine can introduce unforeseen acoustic or aerodynamic effects. Finally, the complexity of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and acoustic modeling means that predicting and verifying noise reduction outcomes accurately can be difficult, potentially leading to development delays or the need for extensive redesign.
What is the expected impact of this contract on future aviation noise regulations and standards?
This contract, focused on developing critical noise reduction technologies, is expected to have a positive impact on future aviation noise regulations and standards. By investing in and advancing technologies that demonstrably lower engine noise, NASA and General Electric are contributing to the scientific and engineering foundation for stricter environmental regulations. Successful outcomes from this project could lead to the establishment of new, more ambitious noise limits for commercial aircraft. Furthermore, the developed technologies could become industry benchmarks, influencing the design of next-generation engines and aircraft. This proactive approach by NASA helps the aviation sector meet evolving societal expectations for reduced environmental impact and can preemptively address potential regulatory challenges by demonstrating technological feasibility.
How does the 'Cost No Fee' contract type influence the contractor's approach to managing project costs and risks?
The 'Cost No Fee' (CNF) contract type fundamentally alters the contractor's (General Electric) incentive structure compared to fixed-price or cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts. In a CNF arrangement, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred in performing the contract, but receives no additional fee or profit. This means GE's primary motivation is not profit generation from this specific contract, but rather the successful completion of the project's technical objectives as defined by NASA. Consequently, GE is incentivized to manage costs diligently to avoid unnecessary expenditures, as any cost savings do not directly benefit them financially. However, the risk of cost overruns still exists, and NASA bears the financial burden. GE's focus will be on technical execution and meeting NASA's requirements efficiently, leveraging their expertise to achieve the desired noise reduction outcomes within the allocated budget, as their reputation and future business opportunities with NASA may depend on successful project delivery.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: BASIC RESEARCH
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)
Contractor Details
Address: 1 NEUMANN WAY, CINCINNATI, OH, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $10,628
Exercised Options: $60,135,128
Current Obligation: $11,971,341
Timeline
Start Date: 2000-01-15
Current End Date: 2004-04-30
Potential End Date: 2004-04-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2008-07-28
More Contracts from General Electric Company
- 200607!387702!1700!n00019!naval AIR Systems Command !N0001906C0088 !A!N! !N! ! !20060424!20090131!001408509!001408509!001367960!n!general Electric Company !1000 Western AVE !lynn !ma!01905!37490!009!25!lynn !essex !mass !+000018238000!n!n!000000000000!2840!gas Turbines and JET Engines, Acft & Comps !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !000 !NOT Discernable !336412!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!u!j!1!001!n!1a!z!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!y! ! ! !Y!1719!N00019!0001! ! — $2.4B (Department of Defense)
- Adaptive Engine Transition Program (aetp) — $2.1B (Department of Defense)
- 200608!001069!2100!w58rgz!usa Aviation and Missile Command!w58rgz06c0038 !A!N! !Y! ! !20051215!20101231!137488664!137488664!001367960!n!general Electric Company !1 Neumann WAY !cincinnati !oh!45215!15000!061!39!cincinnati !hamilton !ohio !+000177879422!n!n!000000000000!r706!logistics Support Services !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !000 !NOT Discernable !541330!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!n!j!1!001!n!1g!z!n!z! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!d!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $1.6B (Department of Defense)
- 200210!004379!1700!AA427 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001901C0147 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20020508!20031130!001408509!001408509!001367960!n!general Electric Company Inc !1000 Western AVE !lynn !ma!01910!37490!009!25!lynn !essex !mass !+000060619860!n!n!000000000000!2840!gas Turbines and JET Engines, Acft & Comps !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !2bjn!f414-Ge-400 !336412!E! !1! ! !C! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!n!j!1!001!n!1a!a!w!f! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!y! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $1.5B (Department of Defense)
- F414-GE-400 Engines — $1.2B (Department of Defense)
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 →