NASA's $1.23B program management contract awarded to TIETRONIX SOFTWARE INC shows potential value concerns
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $12,333,461 ($12.3M)
Contractor: Tietronix Software Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2003-04-02
End Date: 2008-04-30
Contract Duration: 1,855 days
Daily Burn Rate: $6.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: PROGRAM & PROJECT MANAGEMENT & INTEGRATION
Place of Performance
Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77058, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $12.3 million to TIETRONIX SOFTWARE INC for work described as: PROGRAM & PROJECT MANAGEMENT & INTEGRATION Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize cost overruns. 2. Limited competition details suggest potential for suboptimal price discovery. 3. The contract duration of 1855 days warrants scrutiny for efficiency. 4. Engineering services are critical for NASA's complex missions. 5. The contract's value is significant within the broader federal engineering services landscape. 6. Performance context is crucial given the long duration and cost structure.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without detailed performance metrics and cost breakdowns. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing model, while offering flexibility for evolving requirements, can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed rigorously. Comparing it to similar large-scale program management contracts within NASA or other agencies would provide a clearer picture of its cost-effectiveness. The total award amount of $1.23 billion over its period suggests a substantial investment, necessitating close monitoring of deliverables against costs.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. The number of bidders (6) indicates a moderate level of competition. However, the exclusion of sources raises questions about the breadth of the competitive landscape and whether the most advantageous offers were fully considered. This type of competition can sometimes lead to less aggressive pricing than true full and open competition.
Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers than if a broader range of qualified contractors had been able to bid without exclusion.
Public Impact
Benefits NASA's mission-critical program and project management capabilities. Ensures the delivery of essential engineering services for complex space exploration and research initiatives. Supports technological advancement and scientific discovery through effective program execution. Impacts the aerospace engineering workforce, potentially creating or sustaining high-skilled jobs. Geographic impact is primarily centered around NASA facilities and contractor locations in Texas.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may lead to cost escalation.
- Limited competition after source exclusion could impact price competitiveness.
- Long contract duration requires sustained oversight to ensure efficiency.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Positive Signals
- Awarded to a single contractor, potentially allowing for focused expertise and streamlined communication.
- The contract supports critical NASA engineering services, vital for mission success.
- The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the contractor's profit.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the aerospace industry. The federal government, particularly agencies like NASA, is a major consumer of these services for research, development, and program management of complex projects. The market size for federal engineering services is substantial, with significant spending allocated annually. This contract represents a notable portion of spending within this niche, supporting specialized technical expertise required for advanced engineering and project oversight.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the 'sb' field is false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. This suggests that the prime contractor, TIETRONIX SOFTWARE INC, is likely a large business, and opportunities for small businesses may be limited unless they are engaged as subcontractors by the prime. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Mechanisms likely include regular progress reviews, performance monitoring against contract milestones, and financial audits. The Inspector General's office at NASA would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency would depend on NASA's reporting practices regarding contract performance and expenditures.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Engineering Services Contracts
- Federal Program Management Services
- Aerospace Engineering Support
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
- Large Scale Federal IT & Engineering Contracts
Risk Flags
- Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee structure
- Limited competition due to source exclusion
- Long contract duration requires sustained oversight
- Potential for cost overruns
- Lack of detailed public performance metrics
Tags
nasa, engineering-services, program-management, cost-plus-fixed-fee, limited-competition, texas, large-contract, federal-spending, aerospace, r&d
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $12.3 million to TIETRONIX SOFTWARE INC. PROGRAM & PROJECT MANAGEMENT & INTEGRATION
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is TIETRONIX SOFTWARE 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 $12.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2003-04-02. End: 2008-04-30.
What is the track record of TIETRONIX SOFTWARE INC with NASA and other federal agencies, particularly on similar large-scale engineering contracts?
TIETRONIX SOFTWARE INC has a history of contracting with federal agencies, including NASA. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts is crucial for assessing their capability and reliability. Specific details on past project successes, cost performance, and adherence to schedules would provide valuable context. For instance, reviewing their performance on previous NASA contracts, especially those involving program management and engineering services, can highlight any recurring issues or consistent strengths. A deeper dive into contract close-out data and any past performance evaluations (like Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) would offer a more comprehensive view of their track record and suitability for managing a contract of this magnitude and complexity.
How does the total contract value of $1.23 billion compare to similar program management contracts awarded by NASA or other agencies for comparable services?
The $1.23 billion total award value for this program management and integration contract is substantial. To benchmark its value, it should be compared against contracts for similar services (e.g., engineering support, project management, systems integration) awarded by NASA or other agencies like the Department of Defense or Department of Energy over the past five to ten years. Factors such as contract duration, scope of work, and the specific technical requirements will influence comparability. If this contract's value per year or per deliverable is significantly higher than comparable contracts, it could indicate potential overpricing or scope creep. Conversely, if it's lower, it might suggest a more competitive bid or a more efficient service delivery model. Access to detailed contract databases and market research reports would be essential for a robust comparison.
What are the primary risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type used for this award, and how are they being mitigated?
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type carries inherent risks, primarily the potential for cost overruns. While the contractor is paid their actual costs plus a fixed fee, there's less incentive for them to control costs aggressively compared to fixed-price contracts. This can lead to the government paying more than anticipated if the contractor's costs escalate. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust government oversight, detailed cost tracking, regular audits, and clear definition of allowable costs. NASA's contracting officers and technical teams would need to diligently monitor expenditures, scrutinize invoices, and ensure that all costs incurred are reasonable, allocable, and necessary for contract performance. Strong contract management practices are paramount to managing the risks associated with CPFF agreements.
Given the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award type, what was the rationale for excluding certain sources, and what impact did this have on overall competition?
The rationale for excluding sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award typically stems from specific technical requirements, unique capabilities, or proprietary information that only certain contractors can provide. However, this exclusion inherently limits the competitive pool. The impact on overall competition can be significant; fewer bidders may result in less aggressive pricing and potentially limit the range of innovative solutions considered. To assess the impact, one would need to understand the specific criteria used for exclusion and whether these criteria were justified and narrowly tailored. If the exclusions were overly broad or not well-substantiated, it could suggest a less competitive process than intended, potentially leading to higher costs for the government and taxpayers. The fact that six bidders participated suggests some level of competition remained, but the exclusions warrant scrutiny.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how is performance being measured to ensure effective program management and integration?
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a contract focused on program management and integration are critical for ensuring mission success and value for money. While not explicitly detailed in the provided data, typical KPIs for such a contract would likely include metrics related to schedule adherence (e.g., on-time completion of milestones), cost control (e.g., staying within budget, variance analysis), quality of deliverables (e.g., accuracy, completeness, technical soundness), risk management effectiveness (e.g., identification and mitigation of project risks), and stakeholder satisfaction. NASA's contract management team would be responsible for establishing these KPIs, tracking the contractor's performance against them, and conducting regular reviews. The effectiveness of the program management and integration hinges on the clarity and rigor of these performance metrics and the government's ability to enforce them.
How does this $1.23B contract fit into NASA's overall spending on engineering services and program management, and what are the historical spending trends in this category?
This $1.23 billion contract represents a significant investment by NASA in program management and integration services. To understand its context, it should be viewed alongside NASA's total annual budget and its specific allocations for engineering support, research and development, and project oversight. Historical spending trends in this category would reveal whether this award is an anomaly or part of a consistent pattern of investment. Analyzing NASA's budget justifications and contract spending reports over the past decade can indicate shifts in priorities or the increasing reliance on external contractors for critical program functions. Understanding these trends helps assess the strategic importance of such contracts and their sustainability within NASA's financial framework.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 1331 GEMINI ST STE 300, HOUSTON, TX, 77058
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $12,333,461
Exercised Options: $12,333,461
Current Obligation: $12,333,461
Timeline
Start Date: 2003-04-02
Current End Date: 2008-04-30
Potential End Date: 2008-04-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2015-05-29
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 →