NASA's $23.8M JPL IPP contract awarded to California Institute of Technology for R&D

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,862,852 ($23.9M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2005-04-20

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,720 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: JPL IPP FOR FY2005

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $23.9 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: JPL IPP FOR FY2005 Key points: 1. Contract awarded for research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences. 2. Significant duration of 2720 days suggests a long-term, complex project. 3. Cost Plus Award Fee contract type indicates performance incentives. 4. Awarded to a single entity, raising questions about competition. 5. The contract value is substantial for a research and development initiative. 6. Geographic location in California may indicate regional economic impact.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $23.8 million over approximately 7.4 years (2720 days) for research and development is difficult to benchmark without specific deliverables and performance metrics. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure allows for flexibility but can lead to higher costs if not managed tightly. Without comparable contracts for similar R&D efforts at JPL, assessing value for money is challenging. The absence of competition further complicates a direct value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This approach is typically used when a specific entity possesses unique capabilities or is the only responsible source. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from a bidding process that could have driven down costs or spurred innovation through multiple proposals. This raises concerns about whether the best possible price and terms were secured.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without bids from other potential contractors, it's harder to ensure that the awarded price reflects the most economical option available.

Public Impact

Benefits the advancement of scientific knowledge and technological capabilities through research and development. Services delivered include research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences. Geographic impact is concentrated in California, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications include employment for researchers, scientists, and support staff at the contractor's facility.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can sometimes result in cost overruns if not closely monitored.
  • Sole-source awards limit opportunities for other qualified entities to secure government contracts.

Positive Signals

  • Awarded to a reputable institution (California Institute of Technology) known for its research capabilities.
  • Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing research effort.
  • Focus on R&D aligns with NASA's mission to explore and discover.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically under the NAICS code 541710 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences). This sector is characterized by innovation and scientific advancement. NASA is a major spender in this area, funding cutting-edge research. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific research focus, but R&D contracts can range widely in value depending on complexity and duration.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside. As a sole-source award to a large research institution, there are likely no direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless initiated by the prime contractor. This limits the direct economic benefit to the small business ecosystem through this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's contracting officers and program managers. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates close monitoring of performance against established award criteria to ensure accountability. Transparency may be limited due to the sole-source nature and the proprietary aspects often associated with R&D. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Research and Development Contracts
  • JPL Contracts
  • Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
  • Sole Source Research Contracts

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award
  • Cost Plus Award Fee contract type
  • Long contract duration

Tags

research-and-development, nasa, california, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, large-contract, long-duration, jet-propulsion-laboratory, physical-sciences, engineering, life-sciences

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $23.9 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. JPL IPP FOR FY2005

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 $23.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-04-20. End: 2012-09-30.

What specific research objectives were outlined in the JPL IPP contract awarded to the California Institute of Technology?

The provided data does not detail the specific research objectives of the JPL IPP (Interplanetary Propulsion Project) contract. However, given the NAICS code 541710 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences) and the contractor's affiliation with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), it can be inferred that the research likely pertained to advancements in propulsion systems, space exploration technologies, or related scientific disciplines critical for interplanetary missions. The 'IPP' designation strongly suggests a focus on propulsion, potentially involving the development, testing, or refinement of engines, fuel systems, or theoretical concepts for spacecraft designed for long-duration space travel beyond Earth's orbit. Further details would require access to the contract's statement of work or associated documentation.

How does the $23.8 million contract value compare to other NASA R&D contracts for similar propulsion research?

Directly comparing the $23.8 million contract value to other NASA R&D contracts for similar propulsion research is challenging without more specific details about the contract's scope, duration, and deliverables. NASA funds a wide spectrum of R&D projects, ranging from fundamental scientific inquiry to applied engineering for specific missions. Contracts for propulsion research can vary significantly based on whether they involve theoretical studies, component development, full-scale engine testing, or advanced materials research. While $23.8 million over approximately 7.4 years is a substantial investment, it could be considered moderate to significant within NASA's overall R&D portfolio, depending on the technological maturity and complexity of the research undertaken. Benchmarking would require analyzing contracts with similar NAICS codes, contract types (like CPA), and project phases.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) contract for R&D?

Sole-source CPA contracts for R&D present several potential risks. Firstly, the lack of competition means the government may not achieve the most favorable pricing, as there's no market pressure to drive down costs. Secondly, CPA contracts, while incentivizing performance, can lead to cost overruns if the award fee criteria are not meticulously defined and monitored, or if the contractor's costs escalate unexpectedly. For R&D, which is inherently uncertain, predicting costs and defining achievable award criteria can be particularly difficult. The sole-source nature also limits the government's ability to leverage diverse expertise or alternative solutions that might emerge from a competitive process. This can also create a dependency on a single contractor, potentially hindering broader technological advancement.

What is the track record of the California Institute of Technology as a NASA contractor, particularly for R&D?

The California Institute of Technology (Caltech) has an extensive and highly regarded track record as a prime contractor for NASA, most notably through its management of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). JPL, operated by Caltech under contract, is a leading center for robotic exploration of the solar system and Earth sciences. Caltech has consistently secured and successfully executed numerous large-scale, complex R&D contracts and grants from NASA over many decades, covering a vast array of scientific and engineering disciplines. Their performance is generally characterized by scientific excellence, technological innovation, and successful mission execution. The awarding of this JPL IPP contract to Caltech aligns with their established role and expertise in supporting NASA's core research and development mission.

How does the duration of this contract (2720 days) impact the assessment of its value and risk?

The contract duration of 2720 days (approximately 7.4 years) significantly impacts the assessment of its value and risk. On the value side, a long duration suggests a sustained, long-term research effort, potentially indicating a project of high strategic importance or one requiring extensive development and testing phases. This stability can allow for deeper scientific inquiry and technological maturation. However, a longer duration also increases the overall financial commitment and the potential for cost escalation over time. From a risk perspective, extended timelines increase the exposure to technological obsolescence, shifts in research priorities, and potential changes in contractor performance or management. It also necessitates robust, ongoing oversight to ensure continued alignment with NASA's goals and effective use of funds throughout the project lifecycle.

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: $26,917,022

Exercised Options: $26,917,022

Current Obligation: $23,862,852

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-04-20

Current End Date: 2012-09-30

Potential End Date: 2012-09-30 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