NASA's Outer Planets Flagship Mission contract awarded to Caltech for $35.6M faces scrutiny over sole-source nature

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,644,891 ($35.6M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2009-04-21

End Date: 2012-09-25

Contract Duration: 1,253 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: OUTER PLANETS FLAGSHIP MISSION

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $35.6 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: OUTER PLANETS FLAGSHIP MISSION Key points: 1. Contract awarded without competition raises questions about potential cost efficiencies. 2. The contract's cost-plus award fee structure may incentivize cost overruns. 3. Performance period of over three years suggests a complex and potentially high-risk project. 4. The research and development focus aligns with NASA's mission but requires careful oversight. 5. California remains a key state for aerospace R&D contracts. 6. The absence of small business subcontracting goals warrants further investigation.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking this contract is challenging due to its sole-source nature and specific R&D focus. The cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure, while common for complex R&D, can lead to higher final costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if the $35.6 million represents optimal value for the services rendered. The contract's duration and the nature of the work suggest significant upfront investment, but the lack of comparative pricing makes a definitive value assessment difficult.

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. This indicates that NASA determined Caltech was the only responsible source capable of performing the required research and development for the Outer Planets Flagship Mission. The lack of competition means that the pricing and terms were negotiated directly, potentially limiting opportunities for cost savings that might arise from a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can mean taxpayers may not benefit from the price reductions typically achieved through competitive bidding, potentially leading to higher overall costs for the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is NASA, which gains access to specialized research capabilities for its ambitious space exploration goals. The contract supports the development of advanced scientific instruments and mission planning for exploring outer planets. The geographic impact is concentrated in California, supporting high-tech research and development jobs. This contract directly impacts the scientific community by advancing our understanding of the solar system.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Sole-source award limits price discovery and potential savings for taxpayers.
  • Cost-plus award fee structure can incentivize higher costs if not rigorously managed.
  • Lack of stated small business subcontracting goals may limit opportunities for smaller firms in the aerospace supply chain.

Positive Signals

  • Award to a reputable institution like Caltech suggests a high likelihood of technical success.
  • Focus on R&D for outer planets aligns with critical national scientific objectives.
  • The contract duration allows for in-depth research and development crucial for complex missions.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The aerospace R&D market is characterized by high barriers to entry, significant government funding, and a concentration of specialized expertise. Contracts like this are essential for advancing scientific knowledge and technological capabilities in space exploration. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of flagship missions, but NASA's overall R&D budget provides a broader context for such investments.

Small Business Impact

The contract does not appear to have specific small business set-aside provisions. The sole-source award to a large research institution like Caltech suggests that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may be limited or not explicitly mandated. Further review would be needed to determine if any subcontracting plans exist or if small businesses are being leveraged effectively within the project's supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's internal program management and contracting officers. Given the R&D nature and sole-source award, rigorous monitoring of cost, schedule, and technical performance is crucial. Transparency may be limited due to the non-competitive nature, but NASA's Inspector General would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations if any concerns regarding fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Exploration Mission Programs
  • NASA Science Mission Directorate
  • Planetary Science Division Initiatives
  • Aerospace Research and Development Contracts

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award requires strong justification.
  • Cost-plus award fee can lead to cost overruns if not managed.
  • Long contract duration increases risk of scope changes and delays.
  • Lack of explicit small business subcontracting goals.

Tags

nasa, outer-planets, flagship-mission, research-and-development, california-institute-of-technology, caltech, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, space-exploration, aerospace, california, national-aeronautics-and-space-administration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $35.6 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. OUTER PLANETS FLAGSHIP MISSION

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 $35.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-21. End: 2012-09-25.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to the California Institute of Technology?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A sole-source justification typically arises when a specific entity possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or is the only responsible source capable of meeting the government's requirements. For a complex R&D project like an 'OUTER PLANETS FLAGSHIP MISSION,' NASA likely determined that Caltech had indispensable expertise, existing infrastructure, or prior foundational research that made them uniquely qualified. This justification would need to be formally documented by the agency, outlining why full and open competition was not feasible or not in the government's best interest, often citing factors like specialized knowledge, critical research continuity, or urgent need that only one source can fulfill.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type typically influence project costs and performance compared to other contract types?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type is often used for research and development or complex services where the scope of work is not precisely defined, and performance outcomes are critical. Under CPAF, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a fee that consists of a fixed base amount and an award amount. The award amount is determined based on the government's evaluation of the contractor's performance against pre-defined criteria. While CPAF incentivizes high performance by offering potential bonuses, it also carries risks. If the government's performance evaluations are not stringent or objective, or if the criteria are poorly defined, the contractor may receive a substantial award fee even if costs escalate. This can lead to higher overall costs for the government compared to fixed-price contracts, but it offers flexibility for evolving R&D projects where innovation and achieving specific technical milestones are paramount.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract duration of 1253 days (approximately 3.4 years) for a flagship mission project?

A contract duration of 1253 days for a flagship mission project, while potentially necessary for complex R&D, introduces several risks. Firstly, the extended timeline increases the likelihood of scope creep or requirement changes as scientific understanding evolves or technological advancements occur. Managing these changes effectively under a CPAF structure is crucial to control costs. Secondly, long durations can lead to 'schedule slippage' if unforeseen technical challenges arise, impacting the overall mission timeline and potentially increasing costs due to extended labor and overhead. Thirdly, maintaining contractor focus and motivation over such a long period requires robust oversight and clear performance metrics. Finally, economic factors like inflation or changes in funding priorities over 3.4 years could impact the project's viability or necessitate contract modifications.

Given the contract's focus on 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences,' what are the typical performance metrics used to evaluate success?

For R&D contracts in the physical, engineering, and life sciences, performance metrics often go beyond simple delivery timelines. Success is typically evaluated based on achieving specific technical milestones, such as the successful development and testing of prototypes, the validation of scientific hypotheses, or the creation of innovative technologies. Key performance indicators (KPIs) might include the accuracy and reliability of developed systems, the efficiency of processes created, the novelty and impact of research findings (e.g., publications, patents), and adherence to scientific and safety standards. For a flagship mission, metrics would also encompass the feasibility and readiness of mission components, the quality of scientific data anticipated, and the overall technical risk reduction achieved. The CPAF structure implies that these technical achievements, alongside cost control and schedule adherence, would heavily influence the award fee.

How does the geographic concentration of this contract in California (ST: CA, SN: CALIFORNIA) impact the broader aerospace R&D landscape?

The concentration of this significant R&D contract in California reinforces the state's position as a major hub for the aerospace and technology industries. Awarding $35.6 million to an institution like Caltech in California stimulates the local economy by supporting high-skilled jobs in research, engineering, and technical support. It also fosters a rich ecosystem of universities, research institutions, and private companies collaborating on cutting-edge projects. This concentration can lead to further investment and innovation within the region, attracting talent and potentially creating a competitive advantage for California-based entities in securing future large-scale government contracts. However, it also raises questions about equitable distribution of federal R&D funding across different states and regions.

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: $70,441,011

Exercised Options: $70,441,011

Current Obligation: $35,644,891

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2009-04-21

Current End Date: 2012-09-25

Potential End Date: 2012-09-25 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