NASA awards $994K for advanced animal habitat support, highlighting R&D in life sciences
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $9,942,062 ($9.9M)
Contractor: Orbital Technologies Corporation
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2004-10-08
End Date: 2005-11-02
Contract Duration: 390 days
Daily Burn Rate: $25.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 999
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: ADVANCED ANIMAL HABITAT, SPARES AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT TO SUPPORT THE SPACE STATION BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROJECT (SSBRP)
Place of Performance
Location: MADISON, DANE County, WISCONSIN, 53701
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $9.9 million to ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION for work described as: ADVANCED ANIMAL HABITAT, SPARES AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT TO SUPPORT THE SPACE STATION BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROJECT (SSBRP) Key points: 1. Contract value represents a modest investment in specialized biological research support. 2. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee) incentivizes performance while managing costs. 4. This award falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically life sciences. 5. The duration of the contract is relatively short, indicating a focused project scope.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $994,206 is relatively small for a federal contract, especially within the R&D sector. Benchmarking against similar contracts for specialized habitat support is difficult without more specific details on the technical requirements. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for flexibility but requires careful monitoring to ensure value for money. The total award amount is modest, suggesting a targeted need rather than a broad program.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while the competition was open, specific sources may have been excluded for a defined reason. This suggests a competitive process was intended, but the specifics of the exclusion could impact the breadth of competition. The number of bidders is not provided, making it difficult to fully assess the level of competition and its impact on price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple vendors to bid, potentially leading to lower prices and better value. However, the exclusion of sources, if not well-justified, could limit this benefit.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and the researchers involved in the Space Station Biological Research Project (SSBRP). The contract delivers essential support equipment and services for conducting biological research in space. The geographic impact is primarily at the research facilities and the International Space Station. Workforce implications include specialized technical and scientific personnel required for habitat maintenance and research support.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of detailed competition metrics (number of bidders) hinders full assessment of price discovery.
- The 'Exclusion of Sources' clause requires further scrutiny to ensure it did not unduly limit competition.
- Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed stringently.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, indicating an effort to solicit broad market interest.
- The contract supports critical scientific research for NASA's space program.
- The specific nature of the equipment suggests a high degree of technical specialization.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on life sciences and space exploration. The market for specialized biological research equipment and support for space missions is niche, dominated by a few highly specialized contractors. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of space-based research, but federal R&D spending in life sciences is substantial, with NASA being a significant investor in space-related research.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false). Given the specialized nature of supporting biological research in space, it is likely that the primary contractors possess advanced technical capabilities. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, but for such a specialized requirement, it's possible that small businesses could be involved in providing specific components or services if they meet the stringent requirements.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers responsible for the SSBRP. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates close monitoring of costs and performance against defined award criteria. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Space Station Biological Research Project (SSBRP)
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Life Sciences Research Support
- Space Habitat Technology
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns under CPAF structure if not closely managed.
- Technical complexity of space-based animal habitats may lead to performance issues.
- Limited competition due to source exclusion could impact value for money.
Tags
nasa, research-and-development, life-sciences, space-exploration, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, orbital-technologies-corporation, ssbpr, animal-habitat, wisconsin, small-contract-value
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $9.9 million to ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION. ADVANCED ANIMAL HABITAT, SPARES AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT TO SUPPORT THE SPACE STATION BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH PROJECT (SSBRP)
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is ORBITAL TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.
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 $9.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2004-10-08. End: 2005-11-02.
What is the specific nature of the 'ADVANCED ANIMAL HABITAT, SPARES AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT' and its role in the SSBRP?
The 'ADVANCED ANIMAL HABITAT, SPARES AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT' refers to specialized life support systems and associated components designed to house and maintain animals for biological research conducted aboard the International Space Station (ISS) as part of the Space Station Biological Research Project (SSBRP). These habitats must provide a controlled environment that mimics terrestrial conditions as closely as possible while accounting for the microgravity environment of space. This includes systems for air circulation, temperature control, waste management, feeding, and watering, all while ensuring the health and welfare of the research subjects. The 'spares and support equipment' ensure the continuous operation and maintenance of these critical habitats, minimizing downtime for research experiments. The $994,206 award likely covers the development, procurement, or maintenance of such a system, crucial for experiments studying the effects of spaceflight on biological organisms.
How does the 'Cost Plus Award Fee' (CPAF) contract type influence contractor behavior and cost control for this R&D project?
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type is often used for research and development or services where the costs are difficult to estimate precisely upfront and performance outcomes are critical. Under CPAF, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a base fee that is a percentage of the estimated cost. Additionally, the contractor has the potential to earn an award fee based on meeting or exceeding specific performance objectives defined in the contract. This structure incentivizes the contractor to perform well and achieve high-quality results, as the award fee can significantly increase their overall profit. However, it also requires robust government oversight to ensure that the performance criteria are objective, measurable, and that the award fees are justified. For taxpayers, CPAF offers a balance: it allows for flexibility in R&D where innovation is key, but the award fee mechanism should ideally drive efficiency and value, preventing excessive cost overruns if managed properly.
What does 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' imply about the bidding process and potential impact on pricing?
The term 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' suggests a nuanced approach to competition. Initially, the requirement was intended to be competed broadly ('Full and Open'). However, a decision was made to exclude certain potential sources before the solicitation was issued. This exclusion must be justified by specific criteria, such as unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or previous performance on related systems. While the competition was 'open' to all other eligible sources, the exclusion of specific entities could potentially limit the number of bidders. If only a few bidders remain after exclusions, it might reduce competitive pressure, potentially leading to less favorable pricing for the government compared to a scenario with a wider range of bidders. Conversely, if the excluded sources were not viable or if the remaining bidders are highly competitive, the pricing could still be advantageous.
What is the typical track record of Orbital Technologies Corporation (ORBITEC) in supporting NASA or similar space R&D contracts?
Orbital Technologies Corporation (ORBITEC), now part of Sierra Nevada Corporation, has a significant history of supporting NASA and other aerospace clients with innovative technologies, particularly in areas related to life support, environmental control, and advanced propulsion. They have been involved in developing systems for the ISS, including advanced water recycling and air revitalization technologies, as well as habitat concepts for future space exploration. Their track record generally indicates a strong capability in specialized R&D and engineering for space applications. While specific details on past performance for this exact contract type or value are not provided here, ORBITEC's broader portfolio suggests they are a capable provider for complex space-related hardware and support services, often working on cutting-edge projects requiring unique technical expertise.
How does this $994K contract compare in size and scope to other federal R&D spending in life sciences or space exploration?
This $994,206 contract is relatively small when compared to the overall federal spending on Research and Development (R&D), particularly within NASA's budget or the broader life sciences sector. NASA's annual budget runs into the tens of billions of dollars, with significant portions allocated to space exploration, science missions, and technology development. R&D contracts for major space hardware, satellite development, or large-scale scientific experiments can easily reach tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. This particular award appears to be for a specific, focused need – supporting animal habitats for biological research. It represents a component of a larger research project rather than a flagship program. Therefore, while critical for the SSBRP, its financial scale is modest within the context of overall federal R&D investments in space and life sciences.
Are there any identified risks associated with the performance or delivery of these advanced animal habitats and support equipment?
Potential risks associated with this contract could include technical challenges in developing or adapting habitats for the unique space environment, ensuring long-term reliability and safety for both the animals and the ISS, and managing the integration of new equipment with existing station systems. Given the specialized nature of the equipment and the critical role it plays in research, any delays or failures in performance could impact the scientific objectives of the SSBRP. Furthermore, the CPAF structure, while incentivizing, requires diligent oversight to ensure costs remain controlled and that the award fees are earned based on genuine performance improvements rather than inflated efforts. The exclusion of sources, if not properly justified, could also pose a risk by limiting the pool of expertise available.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Space R&D Services
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 999
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 1212 FOURIER DRIVE, MADISON, WI, 02
Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $9,942,062
Exercised Options: $9,942,062
Current Obligation: $9,942,062
Timeline
Start Date: 2004-10-08
Current End Date: 2005-11-02
Potential End Date: 2005-11-02 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2012-03-28
More Contracts from Orbital Technologies Corporation
- Plant Research Unit Sbir Phase 3 — $15.8M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
View all Orbital Technologies Corporation federal contracts →
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 →