NASA's $13.7M JPL contract to Caltech for R&D in physical, engineering, and life sciences awarded via sole-source

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,680,832 ($13.7M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2006-02-21

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,413 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: MAP

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $13.7 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: MAP Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting competitive price discovery. 2. Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences is a broad category with significant government investment. 3. The contract duration of over 2000 days suggests a long-term commitment to the research area. 4. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which can incentivize performance but may lead to higher costs. 5. The geographic location of the contractor in California is noted. 6. The contract was awarded by NASA, a primary agency for scientific research and development.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its specific R&D nature and sole-source award. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to assess if the pricing reflects market rates or represents optimal value for money. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for performance incentives, but also carries the risk of cost overruns if not managed tightly. Comparing it to similar sole-source R&D contracts would be necessary for a more precise value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning there was no open competition. This typically occurs when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when the agency determines that competition is not feasible or not in the government's best interest. The lack of competition means that taxpayers did not benefit from potential cost savings that could arise from a bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to leverage competition to secure the best possible prices, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the California Institute of Technology, which receives funding for its research activities. The contract supports research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences, potentially leading to scientific advancements and technological innovation. The geographic impact is concentrated in California, where the contractor is located. The contract may have implications for the scientific workforce, supporting researchers and technical staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee contract type can lead to higher costs if not managed effectively.
  • Long contract duration increases the risk of scope creep or evolving research needs not being optimally met.

Positive Signals

  • Award to a reputable research institution (Caltech) suggests a focus on quality research.
  • NASA's involvement indicates a commitment to significant scientific and technological advancement.
  • The contract supports critical R&D in vital scientific fields.

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 knowledge and facilities. Government spending in R&D is crucial for driving technological progress and maintaining national competitiveness. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale R&D contracts awarded by agencies like NASA, NSF, or DOD to research institutions.

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 through collaborations with other large entities. This contract's structure is unlikely to directly benefit the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's program management and contracting officers. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies performance metrics that would be monitored to determine award fees. Transparency would depend on NASA's public reporting practices for R&D contracts. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Operations
  • Research and Development in Physical Sciences
  • Research and Development in Engineering Sciences
  • Research and Development in Life Sciences
  • Federal Funding for Scientific Research

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award may limit price competition.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires diligent performance monitoring.
  • Long contract duration increases risk of scope drift or obsolescence.

Tags

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $13.7 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. MAP

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 $13.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-02-21. End: 2012-09-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for NASA's R&D contracts with the California Institute of Technology?

Analyzing NASA's historical spending with Caltech requires accessing detailed contract databases. However, it is generally known that Caltech, through its management of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), is a long-standing and significant recipient of NASA funding for space exploration and related research. Past awards have likely encompassed a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines, often involving large, multi-year commitments. The total dollar value and frequency of these awards would indicate a strong, ongoing partnership. Without specific data for this particular contract's predecessors, a precise historical spending pattern cannot be detailed, but the relationship is established and substantial.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure typically impact contractor performance and cost for R&D contracts?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type is designed to incentivize contractor performance by allowing for a base cost reimbursement plus an award fee determined by the government based on performance against pre-defined criteria. For R&D contracts, this can be effective in encouraging innovation and meeting challenging technical objectives. However, it also introduces complexity in performance evaluation and can lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as the government aims to reward exceptional outcomes. Effective administration requires clear metrics and rigorous oversight to ensure the award fees are justified and that costs remain controlled.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source R&D contract of this magnitude and duration?

Sole-source R&D contracts of significant value and long duration carry several risks. Firstly, the lack of competition means the government may not achieve the most cost-effective pricing. Secondly, the extended timeline increases the risk of technological obsolescence or shifts in research priorities that may not be adequately addressed by the original scope. There's also a risk of 'contractor lock-in,' where the agency becomes overly reliant on a single provider, potentially stifling innovation from other sources. Finally, without competitive benchmarking, assessing the true value for money and ensuring efficient use of funds requires robust internal oversight and performance management.

What specific scientific or technological advancements are expected from this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences' awarded to the California Institute of Technology. While the specific advancements are not detailed in the summary data, this broad categorization suggests potential contributions to fields such as astrophysics, planetary science, materials science, robotics, biotechnology, or fundamental physics. Given Caltech's role in managing JPL, advancements could relate to space exploration technologies, deep space missions, or understanding planetary environments. The exact outcomes would be defined by the detailed statement of work within the contract, which is not publicly available in this summary.

How does NASA ensure accountability and oversight for sole-source R&D contracts awarded to institutions like Caltech?

NASA employs a multi-layered approach to ensure accountability and oversight for sole-source R&D contracts. This includes the appointment of dedicated Contracting Officers and Technical Representatives responsible for monitoring contract performance against the Statement of Work (SOW). For CPAF contracts, performance metrics are established, and regular reviews are conducted to determine award fees, ensuring alignment with program objectives. Financial oversight involves audits and reviews to ensure proper use of funds. Furthermore, NASA's Office of Inspector General provides an independent layer of oversight to detect and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, ensuring that taxpayer funds are used effectively and ethically.

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: $16,169,233

Exercised Options: $16,169,233

Current Obligation: $13,680,832

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2006-02-21

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