NASA's Mars Odyssey Phase E contract awarded to California Institute of Technology for $118.7M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $118,722,187 ($118.7M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2003-09-23

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,295 days

Daily Burn Rate: $36.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: MARS ODYSSEY PHASE E

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $118.7 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: MARS ODYSSEY PHASE E Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single entity, raising questions about competitive pricing. 2. Long contract duration of over 9 years suggests a stable, long-term need. 3. Cost Plus Award Fee contract type allows for performance incentives. 4. Research and Development focus indicates investment in scientific advancement. 5. Significant funding allocated for a single project highlights its importance. 6. Contractor has a strong track record with NASA, suggesting reliability.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its specialized R&D nature and sole-source award. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies that the final cost could vary based on performance, making a direct price comparison difficult without knowing the award fees. However, the total obligation of $118.7 million over nearly a decade for a deep space mission suggests a substantial investment, which may be reasonable given the scientific objectives and the contractor's expertise.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning that NASA did not solicit bids from multiple contractors. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when it's deemed not to be in the government's best interest to compete. The lack of competition means there was no direct price pressure from a bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple firms had competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of a competitive bidding process. Without competing offers, it is difficult to ascertain if the negotiated price represents the best value achievable in the market.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is NASA, which receives continued operational support for the Mars Odyssey spacecraft. The contract enables ongoing scientific research and data collection from Mars. The project contributes to the broader understanding of the Martian environment and potential for past or present life. It supports a highly specialized workforce in aerospace engineering and planetary science. The data gathered can inform future Mars exploration missions and strategies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
  • Long contract duration could lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee structure can incentivize higher spending if award criteria are not tightly controlled.

Positive Signals

  • Award to a reputable institution (Caltech) suggests a high likelihood of successful mission execution.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for performance-based incentives, potentially driving efficiency and effectiveness.
  • The contract supports a critical, long-term scientific mission for NASA.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The aerospace industry, a significant part of this sector, involves complex, long-term projects with high upfront investment. Comparable spending in this area often involves large-scale scientific instruments, space missions, and advanced technological development, where sole-source awards to specialized institutions are not uncommon due to unique expertise requirements.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to involve small business set-asides, as it was awarded to a large research institution. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The focus on specialized research and development at a major institution suggests that the primary work is likely performed by the contractor's internal teams or through collaborations with other large entities, rather than through a broad network of small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with NASA's contracting officers and program managers. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates careful monitoring of performance metrics to determine award fee payouts. NASA's Inspector General's office would also have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is facilitated through NASA's public reporting of mission status and scientific findings.

Related Government Programs

  • Mars Exploration Program
  • Planetary Science Division
  • NASA Research and Development Contracts
  • Space Science Missions
  • Deep Space Communication Network

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award
  • Long contract duration
  • Cost-plus contract type

Tags

nasa, mars-odyssey, research-and-development, space-exploration, california-institute-of-technology, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, long-term-contract, planetary-science, california

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $118.7 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. MARS ODYSSEY PHASE E

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY.

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 $118.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-09-23. End: 2012-09-30.

What is the track record of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) with NASA for similar space science missions?

Caltech, through its Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), has an extensive and highly successful track record with NASA, particularly in managing and operating deep space missions. JPL has been instrumental in numerous iconic NASA missions, including the Voyager program, the Mars rovers (Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity, Perseverance), the Cassini mission to Saturn, and the Juno mission to Jupiter. Their expertise in spacecraft design, mission operations, scientific instrument development, and data analysis is world-renowned. This long history of successful collaboration and mission execution makes Caltech a trusted partner for complex and critical space science endeavors like the Mars Odyssey Phase E extension.

How does the total contract value of $118.7 million compare to other long-duration Mars missions?

Comparing the $118.7 million total obligation for Mars Odyssey Phase E to other long-duration Mars missions requires careful consideration of mission scope, duration, and scientific objectives. For instance, the Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity rover) mission had an initial estimated cost of $2.5 billion, encompassing development, launch, and several years of operation. The Mars Exploration Rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) also represented significant investments. However, Odyssey Phase E is an extension of an existing mission, primarily covering operational costs and continued scientific investigation rather than initial development and launch. Therefore, its cost over nearly a decade might be considered relatively modest compared to the total lifecycle cost of developing and launching a new flagship mission, especially given the scientific return from an established orbiter.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source contract for a mission extension?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source contract for a mission extension like Mars Odyssey Phase E include potential lack of price competition, which could lead to higher costs than a competitively bid contract. There's also a risk of complacency from the contractor, as they face no direct threat from competitors, potentially impacting innovation or efficiency. Furthermore, if the contractor's capabilities were to degrade or if unforeseen issues arise, NASA has limited immediate alternatives without renegotiating or initiating a new, potentially lengthy, sole-source process. Ensuring robust oversight and performance management becomes even more critical in sole-source situations to mitigate these risks.

How effective has the Mars Odyssey mission been in achieving its scientific objectives, and does this justify the continued investment?

The Mars Odyssey mission has been exceptionally effective in achieving its scientific objectives and continues to provide invaluable data. Launched in 2001, its primary goals included mapping the Martian surface composition, searching for evidence of water ice, and studying the planet's radiation environment. Odyssey's THEMIS instrument has provided detailed mineralogical maps, revealing the history of water on Mars. Its gamma-ray spectrometer has mapped hydrogen concentrations, indicating subsurface water ice. The mission has also served as a crucial communications relay for landers and rovers. The continued investment in Phase E is justified by its ongoing scientific returns, its role in supporting other Mars missions, and its contribution to understanding planetary evolution and habitability, making it a cornerstone of NASA's Mars exploration strategy.

What are the historical spending patterns for the Mars Odyssey mission, and how does Phase E fit into the overall budget?

The Mars Odyssey mission, since its launch, has incurred significant costs, with the initial development, launch, and early operational phases representing the largest expenditures. The total cost prior to Phase E would include the spacecraft development, launch services, and the initial mission operations. Phase E represents the extended mission phase, focusing on continued operations and scientific data collection. Historical spending patterns for such missions typically show a high initial outlay followed by lower, sustained annual operational costs. Phase E's $118.7 million over approximately 9 years translates to an average annual cost of roughly $13 million, which is a substantial but manageable figure for maintaining a vital scientific asset in orbit around Mars, fitting within NASA's broader planetary science budget.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesScientific Research and Development ServicesResearch and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTSpace R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4800 OAK GROVE DR, PASADENA, CA, 91109

Business Categories: Category Business, Government, U.S. National Government, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $121,109,273

Exercised Options: $121,109,273

Current Obligation: $118,722,187

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2003-09-23

Current End Date: 2012-09-30

Potential End Date: 2012-09-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2020-10-21

More Contracts from California Institute of Technology

View all California Institute of Technology federal contracts →

Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts

View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending