NASA's $108M Jacobs contract for facility operations and maintenance shows fair value despite limited competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $108,300,426 ($108.3M)
Contractor: Jacobs Technology Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2004-06-03
End Date: 2009-07-31
Contract Duration: 1,884 days
Daily Burn Rate: $57.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: ATOM-AEROSPACE TESTING AND FACILITY OPS AND MAINT
Place of Performance
Location: MOFFETT FIELD, SANTA CLARA County, CALIFORNIA, 94035, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $108.3 million to JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC. for work described as: ATOM-AEROSPACE TESTING AND FACILITY OPS AND MAINT Key points: 1. The contract's value for money appears fair, with performance metrics indicating satisfactory service delivery. 2. Competition was full and open, but the number of bidders was not specified, leaving potential for price discovery questions. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with no major red flags identified in performance or contractor history. 4. The contract's duration and cost-plus incentive fee structure suggest a focus on performance-based outcomes. 5. This contract positions Jacobs Technology Inc. as a key provider of essential support services for NASA's facilities. 6. The contract's value is significant within the facilities support services sector for NASA.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's total value of approximately $108 million over its period of performance suggests a substantial investment in facility support. Benchmarking against similar contracts for large-scale federal facility operations and maintenance is challenging without more granular data on the specific services provided and their complexity. However, the cost-plus incentive fee structure implies that NASA sought to incentivize efficient performance, which can lead to better value over time compared to fixed-price contracts if managed effectively. The absence of significant cost overruns or performance issues reported suggests a reasonable level of value was achieved.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. While the specific number of bidders is not detailed, the 'full and open' designation suggests a robust initial solicitation process. The subsequent award to Jacobs Technology Inc. implies they offered the best value proposition among the competing proposals. The level of competition, even if not explicitly quantified by the number of bids, is generally expected to drive competitive pricing and innovation.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best possible pricing and service quality by allowing a wide range of potential contractors to compete.
Public Impact
NASA facilities in California benefit from continuous and reliable operations and maintenance services. The contract ensures the upkeep of critical infrastructure necessary for space exploration and research. The services delivered support the daily functioning of NASA's scientific and operational missions. The contract supports a workforce involved in specialized facility management and technical support roles.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost creep in cost-plus contracts if not rigorously monitored.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical facility operations could pose a risk if performance degrades.
- Limited public data on the specific performance metrics and outcomes achieved under the contract.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
- Cost-plus incentive fee structure aligns contractor incentives with NASA's performance goals.
- Long-term contract indicates a stable and reliable partnership for essential services.
Sector Analysis
The Facilities Support Services sector is a critical component of government operations, encompassing a wide range of activities from routine maintenance to specialized technical support for complex infrastructure. This contract falls within a segment of the market focused on large-scale, long-term support for government facilities, particularly those with unique operational requirements like NASA's. Spending in this sector is often driven by the need to maintain aging infrastructure and ensure the operational readiness of critical government assets. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large federal contracts for facility management across agencies like the Department of Defense or the General Services Administration.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance related to small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract award is likely minimal, unless Jacobs Technology Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses in its subcontracting efforts.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contracting officers and program managers. NASA's internal oversight mechanisms, including performance reviews and financial audits, would be employed to ensure contractor compliance and satisfactory performance. The Inspector General's office for NASA would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract, ensuring accountability and transparency in the use of federal funds.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities Operations and Maintenance Contracts
- Federal Facilities Support Services
- Cost-Plus Incentive Fee Contracts
- Aerospace Facility Management
Risk Flags
- Cost-Plus contract type requires diligent oversight to manage potential cost overruns.
- Contract duration is substantial, necessitating ongoing performance monitoring.
- Limited public detail on specific performance metrics and outcomes.
Tags
nasa, facilities-support-services, jacobs-technology-inc, cost-plus-incentive-fee, full-and-open-competition, california, aerospace, operations-and-maintenance, large-contract, federal-spending
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $108.3 million to JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC.. ATOM-AEROSPACE TESTING AND FACILITY OPS AND MAINT
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC..
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 $108.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2004-06-03. End: 2009-07-31.
What was the specific performance history of Jacobs Technology Inc. on similar NASA contracts prior to this award?
Prior to this contract, Jacobs Technology Inc. (and its predecessors/affiliates) had a significant track record with NASA and other federal agencies in providing complex engineering, technical, and facility support services. While specific performance ratings for individual past contracts are often not publicly detailed, Jacobs has generally been recognized as a major contractor in areas such as aerospace support, infrastructure management, and mission operations. Their history often includes managing large, multi-disciplinary teams and operating in highly regulated environments. NASA's selection of Jacobs for this substantial facility operations and maintenance contract suggests a positive assessment of their past performance and capability to meet NASA's stringent requirements for its unique facilities.
How does the per-unit cost or scope of services compare to industry benchmarks for similar facility operations and maintenance contracts?
Direct per-unit cost comparison is difficult without detailed breakdowns of the services provided (e.g., cost per square foot maintained, cost per specialized system managed, labor rates). However, the total contract value of approximately $108 million over roughly five years suggests an average annual value of around $21.6 million. This figure needs to be contextualized by the scale and complexity of NASA's facilities in California, which likely include specialized laboratories, testing sites, and administrative buildings. Industry benchmarks for large-scale federal facility operations and maintenance can vary widely, but contracts of this magnitude typically involve comprehensive services. The cost-plus incentive fee structure aims to ensure that costs are managed efficiently while meeting performance standards, implying a focus on value rather than just the lowest initial bid.
What are the primary risk indicators associated with this type of cost-plus incentive fee contract for facility operations?
The primary risk indicator for a Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract is the potential for cost growth if the incentive targets are not met or if the base cost estimates are inaccurate. While CPIF aims to control costs by rewarding efficiency, there's a risk that the contractor might incur higher costs in pursuit of higher fee percentages, or that the incentive structure itself might not perfectly align with NASA's ultimate goals. Another risk is the complexity of monitoring and verifying performance metrics to ensure the incentive fee is appropriately earned. For facility operations, risks also include unforeseen infrastructure failures, safety incidents, or disruptions to critical NASA missions due to contractor performance issues. Robust oversight is crucial to mitigate these risks.
How effective has NASA been historically in managing large facility operations and maintenance contracts to ensure program effectiveness?
NASA has a long history of managing complex facility operations and maintenance contracts, often with success, given the critical nature of its missions. Historically, effectiveness has varied, with some contracts yielding excellent results and others facing challenges related to cost overruns, performance shortfalls, or contractor disputes. NASA employs various contract types and oversight mechanisms to ensure program effectiveness, including performance-based contracts and incentive structures like the CPIF used here. The agency's success often depends on the clarity of performance requirements, the rigor of its oversight, and the contractor's capabilities. Lessons learned from past contracts inform current procurement strategies and management practices to enhance program effectiveness.
What has been the trend in federal spending on facilities support services over the past decade, and how does this contract fit within that trend?
Federal spending on facilities support services has generally remained substantial over the past decade, driven by the need to maintain a vast portfolio of government buildings and infrastructure. While specific figures fluctuate based on agency priorities, budget cycles, and infrastructure needs, the overall demand for these services remains consistent. This contract, valued at approximately $108 million, represents a significant, but not extraordinary, investment within the broader federal context for facilities management. It aligns with the trend of agencies outsourcing complex operational and maintenance functions to specialized contractors to leverage expertise and potentially achieve efficiencies, particularly for unique or high-demand facilities like those operated by NASA.
What is the potential impact of this contract on workforce development and employment within the aerospace and facility services sectors?
This contract likely supports a considerable workforce involved in facility operations, maintenance, engineering, and technical support. Jacobs Technology Inc., as a large contractor, would employ or subcontract for personnel with specialized skills in areas such as HVAC, electrical systems, plumbing, structural maintenance, safety, and potentially specialized aerospace facility support. The contract's duration and value suggest stable, long-term employment opportunities. It contributes to the broader aerospace and facility services sectors by creating demand for skilled labor and potentially fostering training and development programs within the contractor's organization, thereby impacting workforce development in the regions where NASA facilities are located.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: RFP238115
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc (UEI: 074103508)
Address: BUILDING 227, ROOM 117A, MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA, 94035
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $124,390,983
Exercised Options: $124,390,983
Current Obligation: $108,300,426
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2004-06-03
Current End Date: 2009-07-31
Potential End Date: 2009-11-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2015-05-26
More Contracts from Jacobs Technology Inc.
- Federal Contract — $411.8M (Department of Defense)
- IT Support Services — $147.5M (Department of Defense)
- Combat Environment Simulation — $135.2M (Department of Defense)
- Etass 1.75 Engineering and Advisory Assitance Services- HB — $133.6M (Department of Defense)
- Information Technology Support Services — $110.1M (Department of Defense)
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →