NASA's $122M AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES contract to California Institute of Technology awarded in 2003, ending in 2012

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $122,219,706 ($122.2M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2003-11-25

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,232 days

Daily Burn Rate: $37.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $122.2 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES Key points: 1. Contract awarded for Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. 2. Significant duration of over 9 years suggests a long-term research objective. 3. The contract type 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' indicates performance incentives tied to cost control and award criteria. 4. Awarded by NASA, a leading agency in scientific research and development. 5. The contract's value of over $122 million positions it as a substantial investment in scientific exploration. 6. The geographic location of the contractor in California may imply specific research facilities or talent pools. 7. The absence of small business set-asides suggests the scope was not tailored for smaller entities. 8. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies and market engagement.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its specific R&D nature and long duration. The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' structure implies that the final cost could vary based on performance, making direct price comparisons difficult without detailed award fee data. However, the total award of over $122 million over nearly a decade suggests a significant investment in scientific research, which, if successful, could represent good value. Without more granular data on deliverables and outcomes, a definitive value assessment is limited.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when a specific entity possesses unique capabilities, expertise, or intellectual property essential for the project. While it ensures the involvement of a specialized contractor, it bypasses the competitive process that could potentially drive down costs and foster innovation through broader market participation.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there was no opportunity to benefit from competitive bidding, which could have led to a lower price. The justification for the sole-source award would need to be robust to ensure public funds were used efficiently.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely NASA and the scientific community, through advancements in physical, engineering, and life sciences. The contract supports research and development activities, potentially leading to new technologies, discoveries, or a deeper understanding of scientific principles. The geographic impact is centered around the contractor's location in California, potentially leveraging local research institutions and talent. Workforce implications include employment for researchers, scientists, engineers, and support staff at the California Institute of Technology.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Lack of competition may have led to higher costs than a competed contract.
  • The sole-source nature limits transparency into the selection process and justification.
  • Long contract duration could pose risks of cost overruns or scope creep if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

  • Award to a reputable institution like the California Institute of Technology suggests a high likelihood of scientific expertise.
  • The 'Award Fee' component incentivizes performance, potentially leading to better outcomes.
  • The substantial funding indicates a commitment to a significant research endeavor.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. This sector is characterized by innovation, long-term investment, and often involves specialized institutions like universities or dedicated research organizations. The market size for R&D contracts is substantial, driven by government agencies seeking scientific advancements and technological breakthroughs. This specific contract's value of over $122 million over nearly a decade places it as a significant project within NASA's R&D portfolio, likely contributing to fundamental scientific knowledge or enabling future space exploration missions.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. Given the sole-source nature and the likely specialized research focus, it's probable that the primary contractor, the California Institute of Technology, would handle the majority of the work internally. This means there may be limited direct opportunities for small businesses to participate as prime contractors or significant subcontractors on this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's purview, given it was awarded by the agency. As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, NASA would monitor expenditures, evaluate performance against defined criteria, and determine award fees. The long duration and sole-source nature would necessitate diligent oversight to ensure adherence to scope, budget, and scientific objectives. Transparency would depend on NASA's reporting practices for R&D contracts and any public disclosures related to the project's outcomes.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Research and Development Programs
  • Space Exploration Technology Development
  • Scientific Research Grants
  • Physical Sciences Research
  • Engineering Research
  • Life Sciences Research

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award may limit cost savings.
  • Lack of competition could reduce market innovation.
  • Long contract duration requires diligent oversight.

Tags

research-and-development, nasa, california-institute-of-technology, california, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, large-contract, science-and-technology, physical-sciences, engineering, life-sciences, 2003-award

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $122.2 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES

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 $122.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-11-25. End: 2012-09-30.

What specific scientific advancements or technologies resulted from the AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific scientific advancements or technologies resulting from the AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES contract. This contract, awarded to the California Institute of Technology by NASA, spanned from 2003 to 2012 and focused on Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. To ascertain the specific outcomes, one would need to consult NASA's project reports, scientific publications originating from the project, or the final technical reports submitted by the contractor. These documents would typically outline the research conducted, methodologies employed, findings, and any resulting innovations or contributions to scientific knowledge. Without access to these detailed project-specific outputs, it is impossible to quantify the direct scientific impact.

How does the $122 million total award compare to similar NASA R&D contracts awarded around the same period?

Comparing the $122 million total award for the AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES contract to similar NASA R&D contracts requires access to a broader dataset of NASA procurements from the 2003-2012 timeframe. However, based on general knowledge of NASA's funding for major research initiatives, $122 million over approximately nine years is a substantial sum, indicative of a significant, long-term research endeavor. NASA frequently awards large contracts for areas like space exploration technology, fundamental physics, and earth science. Contracts of this magnitude are typically awarded to major research institutions or aerospace contractors for complex projects. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze the average award size, duration, and scope of comparable R&D contracts within NASA during that specific period, looking at factors like the scientific discipline and the lead institution's role.

What were the key performance indicators and award fee criteria for this Cost Plus Award Fee contract?

The provided data for the AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES contract does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or the detailed award fee criteria. For a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, these elements are crucial as they define how the contractor's performance is measured and how much of the potential award fee they will earn. Typically, KPIs for R&D contracts might include achieving specific research milestones, adherence to project timelines, quality of research findings, successful development of prototypes, or publication of results in peer-reviewed journals. The award fee criteria would outline the subjective and objective assessments NASA would make based on these KPIs, often involving factors like technical performance, cost control, schedule adherence, and management effectiveness. Without the contract's statement of work or performance work statement, these specifics remain unknown.

What is the track record of the California Institute of Technology as a federal contractor, particularly with NASA?

The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has a long and distinguished track record as a recipient of federal funding and as a contractor, particularly with NASA. Caltech is renowned for its scientific and engineering research capabilities and has been instrumental in numerous space missions and scientific endeavors, often managing NASA centers like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Historically, Caltech has secured significant funding from NASA and other federal agencies for cutting-edge research. Their consistent ability to win and successfully execute complex, high-value research contracts underscores their strong performance, scientific expertise, and reliability as a federal partner. This specific contract, AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES, awarded in 2003, is one example of their extensive engagement with NASA over many years.

Given the sole-source nature, what was the justification for awarding this contract without competition?

The provided data indicates the AQUARIUS FORM/IMP PHASES contract was awarded on a 'NOT COMPETED' basis, signifying a sole-source procurement. The specific justification for this sole-source award is not detailed in the given data. However, federal procurement regulations allow for sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source is available or possesses unique capabilities, when the contract is for a follow-on effort to a previously competed contract and only one source is qualified, or in cases of urgent need. For a research and development contract awarded to an institution like Caltech, the justification often centers on unique scientific expertise, proprietary technology, or the need for continuity with prior research efforts where Caltech was the sole developer or expert. A formal justification document, such as a Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC), would typically be required and maintained by the agency.

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, 28

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $128,667,707

Exercised Options: $128,667,707

Current Obligation: $122,219,706

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2003-11-25

Current End Date: 2012-09-30

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

Last Modified: 2012-11-08

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