NASA's $10.8M camera development contract with Caltech shows long duration and sole-source award

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,819,541 ($10.8M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2003-09-30

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,288 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: DEVEL MEGPXL CMOS CAMERA

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $10.8 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: DEVEL MEGPXL CMOS CAMERA Key points: 1. The contract's extended performance period suggests a potentially complex or evolving research and development effort. 2. A sole-source award raises questions about the extent of market research and potential for competitive pricing. 3. The cost-plus award fee structure incentivizes contractor performance but requires robust oversight to manage costs. 4. The R&D focus indicates investment in novel technologies, with outcomes potentially impacting future space exploration capabilities. 5. The contract's significant duration may reflect the iterative nature of advanced technology development. 6. The lack of small business participation warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this R&D contract is challenging due to its specialized nature and sole-source award. The cost-plus award fee structure, while common for R&D, can lead to higher final costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to assess if the pricing reflects fair market value for the technology developed. The long duration of nearly 10 years suggests a sustained investment, but the overall value proposition depends heavily on the successful development and application of the camera technology.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, the California Institute of Technology, was solicited. This approach is typically used when a unique capability or proprietary technology is involved, or when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for price discovery through bidding, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a competed contract. The justification for a sole-source award would need to be robust to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently.

Taxpayer Impact: A sole-source award limits the government's ability to leverage competition to drive down prices, potentially resulting in a higher cost to taxpayers for the developed technology.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is NASA, which gains access to advanced camera technology for its missions. The contract supports research and development in advanced physical sciences and engineering. The geographic impact is centered in California, where the California Institute of Technology is located. The contract likely supports highly skilled researchers and engineers within the academic institution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential cost savings.
  • Cost-plus award fee structure requires diligent oversight to control expenditures.
  • Long contract duration increases the risk of cost overruns and scope creep.
  • Lack of transparency regarding specific performance metrics and deliverables.
  • No indication of small business participation or subcontracting goals.

Positive Signals

  • Award to a reputable research institution (Caltech) suggests high technical capability.
  • Focus on R&D indicates investment in potentially groundbreaking technology.
  • Cost-plus award fee can incentivize contractor performance and innovation.
  • Long duration may be necessary for complex, cutting-edge research.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The market for specialized scientific instrumentation, such as advanced cameras for space applications, is often characterized by high barriers to entry and a limited number of highly specialized providers. NASA's spending in this area is crucial for advancing its technological capabilities for space exploration and scientific discovery. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of R&D contracts and the specific technological requirements.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. Given the sole-source nature of the award to a large research institution, it is unlikely that small businesses were directly involved as prime contractors. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any subcontracting opportunities were extended to small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's contracting officers and program managers. The cost-plus award fee structure necessitates close monitoring of expenditures and performance against defined objectives. Transparency regarding the specific research progress and financial reporting would be key oversight mechanisms. The Inspector General's office would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations if any irregularities were suspected.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Research and Development Contracts
  • Advanced Sensor Technology Development
  • Space Exploration Technology Procurement
  • University Research Partnerships

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award
  • Long contract duration
  • Cost-plus award fee structure

Tags

research-and-development, nasa, california, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, technology-development, camera, academic-institution, long-term-project, physical-sciences, engineering

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $10.8 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. DEVEL MEGPXL CMOS CAMERA

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 $10.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-09-30. End: 2012-09-30.

What specific technological advancements were achieved through this contract for the DEVEL MEGPXL CMOS CAMERA?

The contract aimed at the development of a high-resolution CMOS camera, likely for specialized applications within NASA's missions. While the specific technological breakthroughs are not detailed in the provided data, such contracts typically involve advancements in sensor sensitivity, image processing capabilities, radiation hardening for space environments, miniaturization, and power efficiency. The 'MEGPXL' designation suggests a focus on megapixel resolution. The long duration of the contract (2003-2012) implies a significant R&D effort, potentially leading to novel sensor designs or improved manufacturing techniques for space-grade imaging systems. The ultimate success would be measured by the camera's performance in its intended operational environment and its contribution to scientific data acquisition or mission objectives.

How does the cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure compare to other contract types for similar R&D efforts?

Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts are common for research and development where the scope of work can be uncertain and innovation is paramount. Unlike fixed-price contracts, CPAF reimburses the contractor for allowable costs and provides a base fee plus an award fee based on performance against predetermined criteria. This structure incentivizes the contractor to meet or exceed performance goals while allowing flexibility. However, it requires robust government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and that award fees are justified. Compared to Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF), CPAF offers stronger incentives for performance. Compared to Cost-Reimbursement No Fee (CRNF), it provides direct financial motivation. For highly innovative R&D, CPAF can be more effective than fixed-price contracts, which might stifle creativity or lead to disputes if the scope changes.

What are the risks associated with a sole-source award for a technology development contract of this magnitude and duration?

Sole-source awards, while sometimes necessary for unique capabilities, carry inherent risks, especially for large, long-duration technology development contracts. The primary risk is the lack of price competition, which can lead to inflated costs for the government as the contractor faces no pressure to offer the lowest possible price. There's also a risk that the government may not be aware of alternative, potentially superior, or more cost-effective solutions available in the market. Furthermore, without competition, the incentive for the sole-source provider to innovate aggressively or maintain high efficiency might be diminished, relying instead on the contract's continuation. Robust justification, thorough market research (even if it leads to a sole source), and stringent oversight are critical to mitigate these risks.

What is the significance of the contract's long performance period (nearly 10 years) for R&D outcomes?

A nearly 10-year performance period for a research and development contract like this signifies a substantial commitment to a complex and potentially long-term technological endeavor. Such durations are often necessary for cutting-edge R&D where breakthroughs are not guaranteed and iterative development, testing, and refinement are required. It suggests that the project likely involved fundamental research, the development of highly specialized components, or the integration of multiple complex systems. While a long period can increase the risk of cost overruns and technological obsolescence, it also provides the stability and time needed to achieve significant advancements that might not be possible under shorter contract terms. The extended timeline allows for adaptation to evolving scientific understanding and technological landscapes.

How does NASA typically manage R&D contracts awarded to academic institutions like Caltech?

NASA typically manages R&D contracts with academic institutions through a framework that balances scientific freedom with accountability. This involves establishing clear research objectives, milestones, and reporting requirements. Program scientists and technical officers work closely with the researchers to monitor progress, provide guidance, and ensure alignment with NASA's strategic goals. Financial oversight focuses on the allowability, allocability, and reasonableness of costs incurred, especially under cost-reimbursement type contracts. For contracts with award fees, NASA defines specific performance metrics related to scientific discovery, technological innovation, and timely delivery of results. Universities often have dedicated research administration offices that assist in managing the contractual and financial aspects, ensuring compliance with federal regulations (e.g., Uniform Guidance) and institutional policies.

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: $11,608,400

Exercised Options: $11,608,400

Current Obligation: $10,819,541

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2003-09-30

Current End Date: 2012-09-30

Potential End Date: 2012-09-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2020-07-17

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