NASA's $32.4M Active Mirror Testbed contract to Caltech awarded without competition for R&D

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,435,645 ($32.4M)

Contractor: California Institute of Technology

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2007-08-20

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,868 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 51

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: ACTIVE MIRROR TESTBED (AMT) TASK

Place of Performance

Location: PASADENA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91125, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $32.4 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY for work described as: ACTIVE MIRROR TESTBED (AMT) TASK Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus basis, indicating potential for cost overruns. 2. Lack of competition raises concerns about price discovery and potential for inflated costs. 3. Long contract duration of over 5 years suggests a significant, ongoing research effort. 4. The contract is for research and development, which inherently carries higher risk than fixed-price service contracts. 5. California Institute of Technology is a well-established research institution, suggesting a strong technical capability. 6. The contract was not competed, limiting opportunities for other capable organizations and potentially higher value.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's cost-plus award fee structure, combined with a lack of competition, makes a definitive value-for-money assessment difficult. Without competitive bids, it's challenging to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar R&D efforts. The total award value of $32.4 million over nearly five years suggests a substantial investment, but the absence of comparative data prevents a clear determination of whether this represents a good deal for taxpayers. The focus on R&D also implies a higher risk profile, where cost is often less predictable.

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 among multiple potential offerors. This approach is typically justified when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when the nature of the work necessitates a particular entity. However, the lack of competition means there was no opportunity for other organizations to bid, potentially limiting the government's ability to secure the best possible price and technical solution through a competitive process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. It also limits the government's ability to explore a wider range of innovative solutions that might be offered by other firms.

Public Impact

This contract supports advanced research in optical systems, potentially leading to breakthroughs in space-based observation technologies. The research conducted is expected to benefit NASA's scientific and exploration missions, enhancing capabilities for data collection and analysis. The primary beneficiary is the scientific community and the advancement of knowledge in physical and engineering sciences. Work is likely concentrated in California, supporting the local high-tech and research workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Lack of competition may have resulted in a higher price than could have been achieved through a competitive bidding process.
  • Cost-plus award fee contracts can incentivize cost growth if not managed rigorously.
  • The long duration of the contract could indicate a lack of flexibility to adapt to changing research needs or technological advancements.
  • Sole-source awards limit opportunities for other research institutions to contribute and potentially offer innovative solutions.

Positive Signals

  • Awarded to a reputable research institution (Caltech) with a strong track record in scientific research.
  • The contract supports critical research and development for NASA's mission objectives.
  • The research area (Active Mirror Testbed) is specialized and may genuinely require unique expertise found at Caltech.

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, high upfront investment, and often long development cycles. Comparable spending in this area can vary widely depending on the specific scientific discipline and the scale of the research. NASA's R&D spending is crucial for maintaining its technological edge and achieving its ambitious exploration and scientific goals. Benchmarking this specific contract is difficult without more detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to similar, independently competed R&D projects.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. As a sole-source award to a large research institution, it is unlikely to have directly benefited small businesses through prime contracting. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on Caltech's internal procurement practices and the specific needs of the research project, which are not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a cost-plus award fee contract, NASA would be responsible for monitoring expenditures, ensuring that the contractor is meeting performance objectives, and approving fee awards based on performance. Transparency would be limited due to the sole-source nature and the proprietary aspects of R&D. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

  • NASA Research and Development Contracts
  • Advanced Optics Research
  • Space Technology Development
  • California Institute of Technology Research Grants

Risk Flags

  • Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
  • Cost-plus contract type can lead to cost overruns.
  • Long contract duration may reduce flexibility.
  • R&D inherently carries high uncertainty.

Tags

research-and-development, nasa, california, cost-plus-award-fee, sole-source, large-contract, science-and-technology, aerospace, optical-systems, adaptive-optics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $32.4 million to CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. ACTIVE MIRROR TESTBED (AMT) TASK

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 $32.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-08-20. End: 2012-09-30.

What specific technological advancements or research outcomes were expected from the Active Mirror Testbed (AMT) contract?

The Active Mirror Testbed (AMT) contract awarded to the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) by NASA was intended to advance research in adaptive optics and mirror control systems for space-based applications. Specific expected outcomes likely included the development and testing of novel mirror designs, control algorithms, and wavefront sensing techniques that could improve the performance of space telescopes and other optical instruments. This research aims to enable higher resolution imaging, better stability in dynamic environments, and potentially reduce the mass and complexity of future optical systems deployed in space. The contract's focus on R&D implies that the precise outcomes were not fully defined at the outset, allowing for exploration and discovery within the defined research scope.

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

Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts are common for research and development (R&D) where the scope and final costs are difficult to define precisely at the outset. Unlike fixed-price contracts, CPAF reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred and provides a base fee, plus an additional award fee determined by the government based on performance against specific criteria. This structure incentivizes the contractor to meet or exceed performance targets. However, it also carries risks: if not managed diligently, the government may end up paying significantly more than initially anticipated if costs escalate or if performance targets are loosely defined. For cost control, rigorous oversight, clear performance metrics, and independent cost analysis are crucial to ensure the award fee is justified and that overall costs remain reasonable relative to the achieved outcomes.

Given the sole-source nature, what due diligence did NASA perform to ensure Caltech was the only viable option and that the pricing was fair?

When a sole-source contract is awarded, the procuring agency, in this case NASA, is expected to conduct thorough due diligence to justify the lack of competition and ensure fair and reasonable pricing. This typically involves documenting the unique capabilities of the proposed contractor (Caltech), demonstrating why no other source can meet the requirement, and performing a price analysis. Price analysis might involve reviewing historical pricing for similar work, comparing proposed costs to independent government cost estimates, or analyzing the contractor's proposed labor rates and material costs. NASA would have likely reviewed Caltech's technical proposals, past performance records, and cost proposals to ensure they aligned with the agency's needs and budget. The justification for sole-source procurement would need to be formally documented and approved.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar R&D contracts within NASA or other agencies, and how does this contract's value compare?

Historical spending on similar R&D contracts within NASA and other agencies for advanced optics, adaptive systems, and space-based research can vary significantly. Contracts for fundamental research often range from a few million to tens of millions of dollars, depending on the project's scope, duration, and the institution involved. NASA's budget for R&D is substantial, supporting numerous projects across various directorates. Without specific comparative data points for 'Active Mirror Testbed' type research, it's challenging to definitively benchmark this $32.4 million contract. However, for a multi-year R&D effort involving a leading research institution like Caltech, this value appears within a plausible range for complex, cutting-edge scientific endeavors. A more precise comparison would require identifying contracts with identical or highly similar technical objectives and contract structures.

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

Long-duration R&D contracts, such as this nearly five-year award, present several potential risks. Technology can rapidly evolve, rendering the initial research objectives obsolete or less relevant before the contract concludes. Furthermore, the extended timeline can make it difficult to maintain consistent focus and momentum, and the cost-plus nature can lead to budget creep over time. Mitigation strategies employed by agencies like NASA often include incorporating phased reviews, establishing clear milestones, and building flexibility into the contract to allow for adjustments based on emerging technologies or research findings. Regular performance reviews and open communication channels between the government and the contractor are essential to identify and address potential issues proactively, ensuring the research remains aligned with NASA's strategic goals and delivers value.

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: $36,559,350

Exercised Options: $36,559,350

Current Obligation: $32,435,645

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: NAS703001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2007-08-20

Current End Date: 2012-09-30

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

Last Modified: 2015-05-21

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