NASA's $10.3M R&D contract with Caltech for tech development shows a lack of competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,337,746 ($10.3M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2006-03-31

End Date: 2010-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,736 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: 9X SUPPORT TO TECH DEV

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $10.3 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: 9X SUPPORT TO TECH DEV Key points: 1. Contract awarded without competition, raising questions about potential cost savings. 2. Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences sector. 3. Contract duration of 1736 days (approx. 4.7 years). 4. Focus on technology development for NASA's mission. 5. Contract awarded to a single entity, limiting market price discovery. 6. Potential for higher costs due to lack of competitive bidding.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its non-competitive nature and the specialized R&D focus. Without comparable bids, it's difficult to assess if the $10.3 million represents a fair market price. The 'Cost Plus Award Fee' structure suggests performance incentives, but the absence of competition means NASA did not benefit from potential cost reductions that competitive bidding might have yielded. Further analysis would require understanding the specific technical advancements achieved and their alignment with projected costs.

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. NASA likely determined that the California Institute of Technology possessed unique capabilities or was the only responsible source for the specific research and development required. This approach bypasses the standard competitive process, which could lead to a higher price than if multiple vendors had vied for the contract. The lack of bidders means there's no direct market comparison to gauge price efficiency.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for this contract due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without competing offers, there is less assurance that the negotiated price reflects the lowest possible cost for the services rendered.

Public Impact

Benefits NASA's technological advancement and mission capabilities. Services delivered include research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences. Geographic impact is primarily within California, where Caltech is located. Workforce implications include highly skilled researchers and technical staff at Caltech.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Lack of competition may lead to suboptimal pricing.
  • Sole-source awards can reduce transparency in pricing.
  • Difficulty in benchmarking performance and cost without comparable contracts.

Positive Signals

  • Awarded to a reputable research institution (Caltech).
  • Focus on critical technology development for NASA.
  • Potential for significant scientific and technological breakthroughs.

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, often involving specialized institutions like universities and research centers. The market for such specialized R&D is typically characterized by limited players with unique expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific technological domain, 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 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. This contract's structure does not indicate a direct positive impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's internal program management and contracting offices. Given the R&D nature and sole-source award, specific oversight mechanisms would focus on milestone achievement, technical progress, and adherence to the cost-plus award fee structure. Transparency is limited by the non-competitive nature, and while NASA has an Inspector General, the specific oversight details for this particular contract are not publicly detailed.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

  • Lack of Competition
  • Sole Source Award
  • Potential for Cost Overruns
  • Limited Transparency

Tags

research-and-development, nasa, california-institute-of-technology, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, technology-development, physical-engineering-life-sciences, federal-contract, dod-or-non-dod, large-contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $10.3 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. 9X SUPPORT TO TECH DEV

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 $10.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-03-31. End: 2010-12-31.

What specific technological advancements were pursued under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for '9X SUPPORT TO TECH DEV' under NAICS code 541710 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences). While the specific technological advancements are not detailed in the summary data, this classification suggests work related to fundamental research, applied research, and experimental development in areas such as physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and computer science, aimed at supporting NASA's broader mission objectives. Further investigation into NASA's project archives or Caltech's research publications from the 2006-2010 period would be necessary to identify the precise nature of the technology development.

How does the $10.3 million cost compare to similar R&D contracts awarded by NASA during that period?

Directly comparing the $10.3 million cost is difficult without knowing the specific R&D domain and scope. However, NASA awards a wide range of R&D contracts, from small grants for basic research to large, multi-year programs for complex system development. Contracts for specialized, non-competed R&D can vary significantly. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to identify other sole-source or limited-competition R&D contracts of similar duration (approx. 4.7 years) and focus (physical, engineering, life sciences) awarded by NASA between 2006 and 2010. Analyzing the deliverables and outcomes of those contracts against their costs would offer a benchmark.

What are the risks associated with a sole-source award for technology development?

The primary risk of a sole-source award for technology development is the potential for inflated costs due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without competing bids, the government may not achieve the most favorable pricing. Additionally, there's a risk that alternative, potentially more innovative or cost-effective solutions from other vendors are not explored. Sole-source awards can also raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the procurement process. For specialized R&D, the risk is mitigated if the chosen contractor truly possesses unique, indispensable capabilities, but this must be rigorously justified.

What was the performance context for the California Institute of Technology on this contract?

The contract utilized a 'Cost Plus Award Fee' (CPAF) structure, indicating that performance was evaluated against specific criteria, and the contractor could earn an award fee based on meeting or exceeding those criteria. While the summary data doesn't detail the specific performance metrics or the award fee amounts earned, Caltech's status as a leading research institution suggests a high baseline expectation for technical competence. The 'award fee' component implies NASA actively monitored progress and incentivized superior performance beyond basic requirements.

What is the historical spending pattern for NASA with the California Institute of Technology?

The provided data represents a single contract awarded to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) by NASA from 2006 to 2010, totaling approximately $10.3 million. To understand the historical spending pattern, a broader analysis of all contracts awarded by NASA to Caltech over a more extended period would be necessary. This would reveal trends in contract types (e.g., R&D, services, equipment), funding levels, and the specific NASA centers involved. Caltech is a well-established research partner for NASA, and likely has a long history of receiving various research grants and contracts.

How does the contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee) influence the risk and value proposition?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type aims to balance cost control with performance incentives. The government agrees to cover all allowable costs plus a base fee, and the contractor can earn an additional award fee based on achieving specific performance objectives. This structure is often used for R&D or complex services where performance outcomes are critical but difficult to define precisely upfront. For NASA, it incentivized Caltech to excel in technology development. For taxpayers, the risk lies in ensuring the award fee is justified by exceptional performance and that the overall cost remains reasonable, especially given the lack of competition.

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: $15,612,500

Exercised Options: $15,612,500

Current Obligation: $10,337,746

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2006-03-31

Current End Date: 2010-12-31

Potential End Date: 2010-12-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2016-02-22

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