NASA's $24.2M JPL contract to Caltech for R&D in physical sciences shows a long-term commitment

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,245,096 ($24.2M)

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: $10.0K/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 $24.2 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: MAP Key points: 1. The contract's duration of over 2000 days suggests a stable, long-term research partnership. 2. As a sole-source award, the absence of competition may impact price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs. 3. The 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences' NAICS code indicates a focus on fundamental scientific advancement. 4. The contract's value, while significant, needs to be benchmarked against similar large-scale R&D efforts to assess value for money. 5. The cost-plus award fee structure incentivizes performance but requires careful monitoring to ensure cost control. 6. The lack of small business participation raises questions about broader economic impact and potential subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the deliverables and the scope of research. However, the significant duration and the nature of R&D suggest a substantial investment. The cost-plus award fee structure, while common in R&D, can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. Comparing it to other large-scale NASA 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 to the California Institute of Technology, which manages NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). This approach is often used for highly specialized research or when a unique capability resides with a single entity. The lack of competition means that NASA did not solicit bids from other potential contractors, which could limit opportunities for price negotiation and innovation from a wider market.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means that the government did not benefit from competitive bidding, which typically drives down prices. This could result in a higher overall cost for the research conducted under this contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is NASA, which gains access to specialized research capabilities at JPL. The contract supports advanced research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences, potentially leading to scientific breakthroughs. The geographic impact is concentrated in California, where JPL is located. The contract likely supports a highly skilled scientific and engineering workforce at JPL.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
  • Cost-plus award fee contracts require robust oversight to prevent cost escalation.
  • Lack of small business involvement may limit broader economic benefits and subcontracting opportunities.

Positive Signals

  • Long-term contract indicates a stable and trusted relationship for critical research.
  • Award to a renowned institution like Caltech for JPL management suggests high-quality research execution.
  • Focus on R&D aligns with NASA's mission of scientific exploration and technological advancement.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The R&D sector is characterized by innovation and long-term investment, often involving specialized institutions and significant government funding. NASA's R&D spending is a critical component of its mission, driving advancements in space exploration, aeronautics, and related technologies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large, long-term R&D grants and contracts awarded by federal agencies to research institutions.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, nor is there an indication of significant subcontracting to small businesses. The award to a large, established institution like Caltech for managing JPL suggests that the primary focus is on leveraging existing, specialized capabilities rather than fostering new small business participation. This could limit opportunities for small businesses to engage in cutting-edge research through this specific contract vehicle.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with NASA's contracting officers and program managers. Given the sole-source nature and the long duration, continuous monitoring of performance, cost, and adherence to research objectives would be crucial. NASA's Inspector General's office would also have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract's execution.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Research and Development Contracts
  • Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) Operations
  • Federal Grants for Scientific Research
  • Cost-Plus Award Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award may lead to higher costs.
  • Cost-plus contracts require diligent oversight to manage expenses.
  • Long contract duration increases risk of capability misalignment over time.

Tags

research-and-development, nasa, caltech, jpl, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, california, large-contract, long-term, physical-sciences, engineering-sciences, life-sciences

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $24.2 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 $24.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

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

What specific research objectives were funded by this $24.2 million contract, and what were the key deliverables or milestones achieved?

This contract, awarded to the California Institute of Technology for the management and operation of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), was broadly focused on 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences.' Specific deliverables were not detailed in the provided data, as is common for large, multi-year operational contracts for research institutions. The objectives would have encompassed a wide range of scientific inquiry and technological development aligned with NASA's strategic goals, including space exploration, Earth science, and astrophysics. The contract's duration (2006-2012) suggests it supported ongoing research programs rather than discrete, short-term projects with easily defined milestones. The 'Cost Plus Award Fee' (CPAF) structure implies that JPL received reimbursement for its allowable costs, plus an award fee based on NASA's assessment of its performance against pre-defined criteria, which would have included progress in research and operational excellence.

How does the cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure compare to other contract types used for similar R&D work, and what are its implications for cost control?

The Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure is common for research and development contracts where the scope of work can be uncertain or evolve over time, and where performance incentives are desired. Unlike fixed-price contracts, CPAF allows for the reimbursement of actual costs incurred, plus a fee that is determined by the government's evaluation of the contractor's performance against specific criteria. This provides flexibility for R&D projects that may encounter unforeseen challenges or opportunities. However, CPAF can be less cost-effective than fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently, as the government bears the risk of cost overruns. The 'award fee' component is intended to incentivize high performance, but its determination requires a robust and objective evaluation process by the government to ensure it truly reflects value and doesn't simply reward meeting minimum requirements. For taxpayers, CPAF requires strong government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and the award fee is justified.

Given this was a sole-source award, what is the potential impact on innovation and cost-efficiency compared to a competitively bid contract?

A sole-source award, by definition, bypasses the competitive bidding process. This means that NASA did not solicit proposals from multiple potential contractors. The primary impact is the absence of market forces that typically drive down prices and spur innovation through competition. Without competing bids, there is less pressure on the contractor to offer the most cost-effective solution or to introduce novel approaches to gain an advantage. While sole-source awards are justified in specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities, urgent needs), they generally carry a higher risk of inflated costs and potentially slower innovation compared to contracts awarded through full and open competition. For taxpayers, this translates to a potentially higher expenditure for the same level of research and development.

What is the historical spending pattern for NASA's R&D contracts with Caltech/JPL, and does this $24.2 million award represent a significant change?

The provided data indicates a single contract award of $24.2 million to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) for the period of February 21, 2006, to September 30, 2012. This represents a total duration of approximately 2413 days, or about 6.6 years. Without access to a broader dataset of NASA's historical spending with Caltech/JPL, it is difficult to definitively state whether this specific award represents a significant change. However, the substantial duration and value suggest a significant, ongoing investment in the R&D capabilities managed by Caltech at JPL. To assess if it's a change, one would need to compare its value and duration against previous or subsequent contracts awarded for similar purposes to Caltech/JPL, looking for trends in funding levels, contract types, and research focus areas.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-term, sole-source R&D contract like this, and what mitigation strategies might be in place?

The primary risks associated with a long-term, sole-source R&D contract include potential cost escalation due to lack of competition, contractor complacency over time, and the risk of the contractor's capabilities becoming misaligned with evolving agency needs. Since this contract was sole-source, the risk of paying a non-competitive price is significant. Mitigation strategies employed by NASA would likely include robust performance monitoring, regular reviews of cost proposals and expenditures, and clear performance metrics tied to the award fee. For long-term contracts, agencies often build in mechanisms for periodic review and potential re-competition or modification of terms to ensure continued alignment with strategic goals. Strong contract management and oversight are critical to mitigating these risks.

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: $26,075,546

Exercised Options: $26,075,546

Current Obligation: $24,245,096

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