DynCorp awarded $113.4M for NASA JSC aircraft maintenance, a cost-plus contract spanning over three years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $113,430,191 ($113.4M)
Contractor: Dyncorp Technical Services Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2000-09-22
End Date: 2004-02-29
Contract Duration: 1,255 days
Daily Burn Rate: $90.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION OF NASA JSC ASSIGNED AIRCRAFT
Place of Performance
Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77034
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $113.4 million to DYNCORP TECHNICAL SERVICES INC for work described as: MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION OF NASA JSC ASSIGNED AIRCRAFT Key points: 1. The contract utilized a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, which incentivizes contractor performance but can lead to higher costs if not managed closely. 2. With a duration of 1255 days, this represents a significant, long-term commitment for aircraft maintenance services. 3. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for these specialized services. 4. The contract's value of over $113 million indicates a substantial investment in maintaining critical NASA aviation assets. 5. The geographic location in Texas (TX) may point to specific operational needs or existing infrastructure at NASA's Johnson Space Center. 6. The absence of small business set-asides suggests the primary contractor is likely a large entity, with potential subcontracting opportunities.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for cost reimbursement plus an additional fee based on performance. While this can drive efficiency, it requires diligent oversight to prevent cost overruns. Benchmarking this specific contract's value against similar, long-term aircraft maintenance contracts for government agencies would be necessary for a more precise value-for-money assessment. The raw dollar amount of $113.4 million over approximately 3.5 years suggests a significant annual expenditure.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of a competitive bidding process is generally expected to lead to more favorable pricing and better service terms for the government. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation implies a healthy level of market interest.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs and encouraging high-quality service delivery from the competing firms.
Public Impact
NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) benefits from the reliable maintenance of its assigned aircraft, ensuring operational readiness for various missions. The services delivered include essential maintenance and modification, crucial for the safety and functionality of aviation assets. The primary geographic impact is centered in Texas, where JSC is located, supporting local operations and infrastructure. The contract supports a specialized workforce skilled in aircraft maintenance and engineering, contributing to the aerospace sector's employment base.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure requires careful monitoring to ensure costs remain within reasonable bounds and that the award fee mechanism truly drives desired performance.
- Long-term contracts like this can sometimes lead to complacency if not actively managed and reviewed for ongoing necessity and value.
- The lack of specific details on the number of bidders or the competitive range makes it difficult to fully assess the effectiveness of the competition.
- Without performance metrics or award fee details, it's challenging to gauge the contractor's actual performance level and the value derived from the award fee component.
Positive Signals
- The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive marketplace and potential for good value.
- The CPAF structure, when managed effectively, can incentivize high performance and quality service delivery.
- The long duration indicates a stable, long-term need for these services, providing predictability for both NASA and the contractor.
- The contract supports critical NASA operations, contributing to the agency's overall mission success.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the aerospace and defense services sector, specifically focusing on aviation maintenance. The market for government aircraft maintenance is substantial, with numerous large and specialized contractors competing for these essential services. This contract represents a significant portion of spending for maintaining NASA's operational fleet at JSC, fitting within the broader landscape of federal aviation support contracts.
Small Business Impact
The contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary contract was awarded to a large business entity. While there are no explicit set-asides, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors to DynCorp Technical Services Inc., depending on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan and the nature of the required services.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), specifically the contracting officers and program managers responsible for the Johnson Space Center's aviation assets. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure necessitates robust performance monitoring and financial oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and the contractor meets performance objectives. Transparency would be enhanced through regular reporting requirements and potential audits by NASA's Office of Inspector General, although specific IG involvement is not detailed here.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Aviation Support Contracts
- Federal Aircraft Maintenance Services
- Department of Defense Aviation Services
- General Services Administration (GSA) Fleet Management
Risk Flags
- Cost Overrun Potential (CPAF structure)
- Performance Monitoring Complexity
- Long-Term Contract Lock-in
Tags
nasa, jsc, aircraft-maintenance, definitive-contract, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, texas, aerospace, operations-support, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $113.4 million to DYNCORP TECHNICAL SERVICES INC. MAINTENANCE AND MODIFICATION OF NASA JSC ASSIGNED AIRCRAFT
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is DYNCORP TECHNICAL SERVICES 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 $113.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2000-09-22. End: 2004-02-29.
What was the specific performance criteria used to determine the award fee for DynCorp Technical Services Inc. under this contract?
The provided data does not specify the exact performance criteria used to determine the award fee for DynCorp Technical Services Inc. under this NASA JSC aircraft maintenance contract. Contracts utilizing the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure typically outline key performance areas (KPAs) in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS). These KPAs often include metrics related to aircraft availability, mission completion rates, safety compliance, turnaround times for maintenance, quality of repairs, and adherence to budget constraints. The contracting officer would then evaluate DynCorp's performance against these predefined metrics at specified intervals to determine the amount of award fee, if any, to be paid. Without access to the full contract document, the precise criteria remain unknown.
How does the $113.4 million contract value compare to historical spending on aircraft maintenance at NASA JSC?
To accurately compare the $113.4 million contract value to historical spending on aircraft maintenance at NASA JSC, one would need access to NASA's historical procurement data for this specific facility and service category. This contract, awarded in 2000 and ending in 2004, represents a significant investment over its approximately 3.5-year duration. Annualized, it averages around $32.4 million per year. Without historical context, it's difficult to ascertain if this figure represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending compared to previous or subsequent contracts for similar services. Factors such as fleet size, aircraft complexity, and inflation would need to be considered for a meaningful comparison.
What were the primary risks identified during the solicitation and award process for this contract?
The provided data does not detail the specific risks identified during the solicitation and award process for this contract. However, common risks associated with large, long-term government contracts, particularly in aviation maintenance, often include technical risks (e.g., unforeseen maintenance challenges, obsolescence of parts), cost risks (e.g., material cost fluctuations, labor rate increases impacting the cost-reimbursement aspect), schedule risks (e.g., delays in parts delivery, availability of skilled technicians), and performance risks (e.g., failure to meet availability or safety standards). The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure itself implies a risk that the award fee might be paid even if performance is only marginally satisfactory, necessitating strong oversight. The full and open competition suggests that the agency aimed to mitigate risks by leveraging market competition.
What is the typical duration and value range for similar federal contracts providing aircraft maintenance and modification services?
Federal contracts for aircraft maintenance and modification services can vary significantly in duration and value depending on the scope, type of aircraft, and agency. Typical durations can range from one to five years, with options for extensions. Values can span from a few million dollars for smaller, specialized support contracts to hundreds of millions or even billions for large, comprehensive fleet support agreements, especially those involving extensive depot-level maintenance or modernization programs. The $113.4 million awarded to DynCorp for NASA JSC aircraft maintenance over approximately 3.5 years falls within a moderate to significant range for a specific facility's operational support, suggesting a substantial but not exceptionally large contract in the broader federal aviation services market.
How effective was the 'full and open competition' in ensuring competitive pricing for this specific contract?
The data indicates the contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' which is designed to maximize the number of potential bidders and foster competitive pricing. However, the effectiveness of this competition in ensuring the 'best' price cannot be definitively assessed without knowing the number of bids received, the range of proposed prices, and the government's cost estimates. A high number of bids generally suggests stronger competition. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure also plays a role; while competition sets the baseline, the final cost is influenced by actual expenses plus an award fee tied to performance. Therefore, while the competition mechanism was employed, the ultimate price realization depends on subsequent performance and cost management.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Support Activities for Air Transportation › Other Airport Operations
Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: 9BL212801P
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 6500 WEST FWY STE 600, FORT WORTH, TX, 76116
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $30,925,522
Exercised Options: $108,538,695
Current Obligation: $113,430,191
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2000-09-22
Current End Date: 2004-02-29
Potential End Date: 2004-02-29 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-04
More Contracts from Dyncorp Technical Services Inc
- Federal Contract — $233.4M (Department of Defense)
- Labor Svcs to Perform AIR Test and Evaluation AOA Indirect/Direct Maintenance Requirements — $174.7M (Department of Defense)
- 200411!000709!5700!GD15 !oc-Alc/Lidac !F3460197D0422 !A!N! !N!0138 ! !20040823!20050823!608461898!003242013!009581091!n!dyncorp International LLC !6500 West Freeway, Suite 6!fort Worth !tx!76116!26736!027!48!fort Hood !bell !texas !+000036119625!n!n!000000000000!j016!maint & Repair of Eq/Aircraft Comps & Accys !a1c!other Aircraft Equipment !000 !* !336413!E! !5!B!M! !A! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!u!y!2!004!b! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !c!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y!2100! !0001! ! — $74.2M (Department of Defense)
- 200607!000750!5700!fa8108!oc-Alc/Lad CFT !F3460197D0422 !A!N! !N!0177 ! !20060206!20070205!608461898!003242013!009581091!n!dyncorp International LLC !13500 Heritage Parkway !fort Worth !tx!76177!26736!027!48!fort Hood !bell !texas !+000000300000!n!n!000000000000!j015!maint & Repair of Eq/Aircraft Structural Comps !a1c!other Aircraft Equipment !000 !NOT Discernable !336413!E! !5!B!M! !A! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!u!y!2!004!b! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !c!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y!2100! !0001! ! — $70.7M (Department of Defense)
- Provide Identification,Inspection,Rework,Verification,Calibration Repair, Reclamation and Processing of Support Equipment (SE) and Material Handling Equipment (MHE) — $61.5M (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 →