NASA's $53.2M SE&I contract to California Institute of Technology for R&D shows a lack of competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $53,225,321 ($53.2M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2006-01-04

End Date: 2011-10-31

Contract Duration: 2,126 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: SE&I

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $53.2 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: SE&I Key points: 1. The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, indicating limited or no competition. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which can incentivize performance but may also lead to higher costs. 3. The duration of the contract was over 5 years, suggesting a long-term need for these services. 4. The contract was for Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. 5. The primary place of performance was California. 6. The contract involved 51 delivery orders, suggesting a complex and active project.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its sole-source nature and specialized R&D focus. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure means the final cost is tied to performance, making direct price comparisons difficult without knowing the award fees. However, the absence of competition raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price and value.

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. This typically occurs when only one responsible source is available or in cases of urgent need. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for multiple vendors to bid, potentially limiting price discovery and innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without competing the requirement, it's difficult to ascertain if the pricing reflects market rates or if a more cost-effective solution could have been found.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is NASA, which received research and development services. The services delivered fall under the broad category of Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. The geographic impact is concentrated in California, where the contract was performed. The contract likely supported specialized scientific and engineering workforce within the performing organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing and innovation.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.
  • Lack of transparency in the award process due to sole-source nature.

Positive Signals

  • Awarded to a specialized research institution (Caltech), suggesting access to unique expertise.
  • Long-term contract duration indicates a sustained need and potential for deep collaboration.
  • Multiple delivery orders suggest active engagement and progress on research objectives.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. This is a critical area for government innovation and technological advancement. Comparable spending in this sector can vary widely depending on the specific scientific domain and agency. However, contracts with academic institutions for specialized R&D often involve unique expertise not readily available in the broader market.

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, with limited direct benefit to the small business ecosystem unless specific research areas are outsourced.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with NASA's contracting officers and program managers. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies performance metrics that would be monitored to determine award fees. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Research and Development Contracts
  • Federal Science and Technology Funding
  • Aerospace Research and Development
  • University Research Partnerships

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential cost efficiencies.
  • Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require diligent oversight to manage costs and ensure value.
  • Lack of transparency in the procurement process due to sole-source nature.

Tags

nasa, research-and-development, california, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, systems-engineering-and-integration, academic-institution, long-term-contract, delivery-order

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $53.2 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. SE&I

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 $53.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-01-04. End: 2011-10-31.

What specific research and development activities were undertaken under this contract?

The contract data indicates the work falls under NAICS code 541710, 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences.' While the specific projects are not detailed in the provided data, this broad category suggests activities ranging from fundamental scientific inquiry to applied engineering solutions within NASA's mission areas. This could include areas like propulsion systems, materials science, space exploration technologies, astrophysics research, or life support systems for space missions. The 'SE&I' designation likely refers to Systems Engineering and Integration, implying the contract supported the integration and oversight of complex systems developed for NASA projects.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure typically impact contractor performance and cost?

A Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract reimburses the contractor for allowable costs plus a fixed fee, with a significant portion of that fee being an 'award fee' earned based on performance against pre-defined criteria. This structure aims to incentivize contractors to exceed minimum performance requirements, as higher performance leads to higher total compensation. For the government, it offers flexibility in specialized or R&D areas where performance metrics can be subjective or difficult to define upfront. However, CPAF contracts can be complex to administer, requiring robust oversight to ensure fair and objective evaluation of performance for award fee determination. There's also a risk that poorly defined criteria or subjective evaluations could lead to disputes or unintended cost escalations if award fees are granted too liberally.

What are the implications of a sole-source award for NASA's procurement strategy?

A sole-source award, as seen with this contract to the California Institute of Technology, implies that NASA determined that only one responsible source was capable of meeting the requirement, or that a compelling reason existed to bypass full and open competition. For NASA, this can be a strategic choice to leverage unique, highly specialized expertise resident within a particular institution, especially in cutting-edge R&D. However, it bypasses the benefits of competition, such as potentially lower prices, wider innovation, and increased vendor accountability that arise from a competitive bidding process. Relying on sole-source awards frequently can also limit the growth of a broader vendor base and may raise concerns about long-term cost-effectiveness and market responsiveness.

What is the typical role of institutions like Caltech in federal R&D contracting?

Institutions like the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) are often pivotal players in federal Research and Development (R&D) contracting, particularly for agencies like NASA. They possess world-class research facilities, leading scientific and engineering talent, and a strong track record in fundamental and applied research. Federal agencies frequently partner with such institutions to tackle complex scientific challenges, push technological boundaries, and conduct research that may not be commercially viable or readily available from private industry. These partnerships are crucial for advancing national scientific capabilities and achieving agency missions, often involving long-term, high-risk, high-reward research endeavors.

How does the duration and number of delivery orders suggest the nature of the work performed?

The contract's duration of 2126 days (approximately 5.8 years) and the issuance of 51 delivery orders suggest a substantial, ongoing, and evolving research and development effort. A long duration indicates that the work was not a short-term project but rather a sustained program requiring continuous effort and potentially adapting to new findings or changing requirements over time. The high number of delivery orders points to a project that was likely broken down into manageable phases or tasks, with specific deliverables or milestones being ordered incrementally. This approach allows for flexibility in funding and tasking, enabling NASA to direct the research as needed and manage the project's progression effectively over its extended period.

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: $55,820,570

Exercised Options: $55,820,570

Current Obligation: $53,225,321

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2006-01-04

Current End Date: 2011-10-31

Potential End Date: 2011-10-31 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