NASA's $27.3M JPL Support Contract Awarded to California Institute of Technology for R&D

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,265,828 ($27.3M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2004-05-27

End Date: 2009-01-25

Contract Duration: 1,704 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: JPL SUPPORT TO ESMD

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $27.3 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: JPL SUPPORT TO ESMD Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single entity, raising questions about competition and potential cost efficiencies. 2. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee, can incentivize performance but may lead to higher costs if not managed closely. 3. Long duration of over 4 years suggests a need for sustained support in physical, engineering, and life sciences research. 4. Focus on Research and Development indicates investment in future capabilities rather than immediate service delivery. 5. The contract's value, while significant, needs to be benchmarked against similar R&D support contracts for a true value assessment. 6. Geographic concentration in California for this R&D effort.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $27.3 million over approximately 4 years for R&D support is difficult to assess without comparable benchmarks. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for contractor reimbursement of costs plus a fee that can be adjusted based on performance. While this can incentivize good performance, it also carries a risk of cost overruns if performance metrics are not tightly controlled or if the base cost estimates are inaccurate. Without data on the specific award fee criteria and the contractor's actual performance against those criteria, it's challenging to definitively state the value for money achieved.

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 potential contractors. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, expertise, or intellectual property essential for the requirement, or in cases of urgent need. The lack of competition means that NASA did not benefit from the price discovery and potential cost savings that typically arise from a competitive bidding process. This raises concerns about whether the government obtained the best possible price and value.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit taxpayer benefit by foregoing competitive pressures that drive down costs. This means taxpayers may have paid a premium compared to what could have been achieved through a competitive process.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which receives essential research and development support. The contract supports advancements in physical, engineering, and life sciences, potentially leading to new technologies and scientific discoveries. The geographic impact is concentrated in California, where the California Institute of Technology is located and likely where the work is performed. The contract supports a highly specialized workforce in scientific research and engineering fields.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential cost savings for taxpayers.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee structure carries inherent risk of cost escalation if not rigorously managed.
  • Lack of transparency regarding specific performance metrics and award fee payouts makes value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

  • Awarded to a reputable research institution (Caltech) with a strong track record in aerospace and R&D.
  • Long-term nature of the contract suggests a stable and reliable support mechanism for NASA's programs.
  • Focus on R&D aligns with NASA's mission to advance scientific knowledge and space exploration.

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 development cycles, and often requires specialized expertise and facilities. Government spending in R&D is crucial for driving technological advancements, national security, and economic growth. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale R&D contracts awarded by agencies like NASA, NSF, or DoD to research institutions and universities, often involving significant intellectual property development.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, nor is there information suggesting significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The award to a large research institution like Caltech typically means the primary work is performed in-house or by other large entities. This contract's structure is unlikely to have a direct positive impact on the small business ecosystem within the aerospace or R&D sectors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, NASA contracting officers and technical monitors would be responsible for overseeing the contractor's costs, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and evaluating performance against award fee criteria. Transparency regarding the specific performance metrics and the resulting fee awards would be key to assessing accountability. While NASA has its own Inspector General, the specific details of oversight and accountability are often internal to the agency unless significant issues arise.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Research and Development Contracts
  • Aerospace Research Support
  • University Research Partnerships
  • Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
  • Federal Research Grants

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award may result in higher costs.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee structure carries risk of cost overruns.
  • Lack of competition limits price discovery.
  • Performance metrics and award fee details not publicly available for full assessment.

Tags

research-and-development, nasa, california-institute-of-technology, jet-propulsion-laboratory, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, delivery-order, california, large-contract, science-and-technology, aerospace

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $27.3 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. JPL SUPPORT TO ESMD

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 $27.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-05-27. End: 2009-01-25.

What is the California Institute of Technology's track record with NASA and other federal agencies for similar R&D support contracts?

The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has a long and distinguished history of supporting NASA's missions, most notably through its management of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). Caltech has consistently secured significant federal funding, primarily from NASA, for research and development activities. Their track record includes managing complex projects, conducting cutting-edge scientific research, and developing advanced technologies for space exploration and Earth science. Data on specific contract values and performance metrics for Caltech's broader federal portfolio would provide further insight, but their established relationship with NASA and the scale of their involvement with JPL indicate a strong, albeit potentially less competitive, historical performance.

How does the $27.3 million contract value compare to other R&D support contracts awarded by NASA or similar agencies?

Benchmarking the $27.3 million contract value requires comparing it against similar Research and Development (R&D) support contracts awarded by NASA or other federal agencies (like the Department of Defense or National Science Foundation) to large research institutions or universities. Contracts for managing large research centers like JPL, or for specific large-scale R&D initiatives, can range from tens of millions to billions of dollars over their lifecycle. A $27.3 million award over approximately four years suggests a substantial, but not exceptionally large, contract for specialized R&D support. Without knowing the specific scope of work, deliverables, and duration, a precise comparison is difficult, but it falls within the typical range for significant, multi-year R&D efforts.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract for R&D support?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract for R&D support are twofold. Firstly, the sole-source nature eliminates competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher costs than if the contract were competed. The government may not achieve the best possible price. Secondly, the CPAF structure, while designed to incentivize performance, carries inherent risks. If the base cost estimates are inaccurate or if the award fee criteria are not rigorously defined and monitored, costs can escalate beyond initial projections. There's also a risk that the 'award' aspect might incentivize meeting easily achievable targets rather than pushing for true innovation or efficiency, especially if oversight is not robust. Effective management and oversight are critical to mitigating these risks.

How effective is the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure in ensuring value for money in R&D contracts?

The effectiveness of the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure in ensuring value for money in R&D contracts is highly dependent on its implementation and oversight. When well-defined performance metrics are established, directly tied to critical R&D objectives, and rigorously monitored, CPAF can incentivize contractors to exceed expectations and deliver superior results, thus potentially enhancing value. However, if metrics are poorly defined, easily met, or if oversight is lax, the 'award' portion can become a de facto increase in profit without a corresponding increase in value or innovation. For R&D, where outcomes can be uncertain, CPAF aims to balance cost reimbursement with performance incentives, but it requires sophisticated contract management to ensure taxpayers receive genuine value.

What are the historical spending patterns for R&D support at NASA, particularly concerning sole-source awards to institutions like Caltech?

NASA has a historical pattern of awarding significant R&D support contracts, often on a sole-source or limited-competition basis, to institutions with specialized expertise and established infrastructure, such as Caltech (for JPL) and universities. These awards are frequently justified by the unique capabilities, long-standing relationships, and critical infrastructure these entities possess. Spending patterns show a consistent investment in areas like space exploration, aeronautics, and Earth science research. While competitive bidding is preferred, NASA often relies on these sole-source arrangements for managing major research centers or highly specialized R&D programs where transitioning to a new contractor would be disruptive and costly. Analyzing historical data would reveal the frequency and scale of such awards.

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: 1

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: $68,404,000

Exercised Options: $68,404,000

Current Obligation: $27,265,828

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2004-05-27

Current End Date: 2009-01-25

Potential End Date: 2009-01-25 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2021-02-17

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