NASA's $16.6M administrative services contract with Legacy Resource Consulting Corporation spans 6.5 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $16,626,020 ($16.6M)
Contractor: Legacy Resource Consulting Corporation
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2007-01-01
End Date: 2013-09-20
Contract Duration: 2,454 days
Daily Burn Rate: $6.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: SAP PURCHASE REQUISITION: 4200179490
Place of Performance
Location: MOFFETT FIELD, SANTA CLARA County, CALIFORNIA, 94035
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $16.6 million to LEGACY RESOURCE CONSULTING CORPORATION for work described as: SAP PURCHASE REQUISITION: 4200179490 Key points: 1. The contract's duration and cost suggest a significant need for ongoing administrative support. 2. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure allows for flexibility but requires careful monitoring of expenses. 3. The contract was competed after excluding sources, indicating a potentially limited but justified competition. 4. The administrative services sector is crucial for efficient government operations. 5. Performance context is limited without specific task orders or deliverables. 6. The contract's value places it in the mid-range for similar federal administrative support contracts.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The total value of $16.6 million over approximately 6.5 years averages to about $2.55 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar administrative support contracts is challenging without more granular data on the specific services provided. However, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while offering flexibility, can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed tightly, as contractor overhead and profit are factored in. The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the government.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This indicates that while a competitive process was intended, certain sources were excluded, potentially narrowing the field of bidders. The presence of two bidders suggests some level of competition, but the exclusion of other potential offerors raises questions about the extent of market engagement and whether the most competitive pricing was achieved.
Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers than if a broader, unrestricted competition had been conducted. It is crucial to understand the rationale behind the source exclusion to ensure fair market access and optimal value.
Public Impact
Federal agencies, specifically NASA, benefit from consistent administrative support services. The contract ensures the continuity of essential office administrative functions. The geographic impact is primarily within NASA's operational areas, likely supporting its headquarters or major centers. Workforce implications include the employment of administrative professionals by the contractor.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to the CPFF structure if not rigorously managed.
- Limited competition may have restricted price discovery and potentially increased costs.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes assessing true value-for-money difficult.
- Long contract duration could lead to vendor lock-in or reduced incentive for innovation.
Positive Signals
- The contract provides essential administrative services, ensuring operational continuity for NASA.
- The fixed fee component offers some predictability in contractor profit.
- The existence of two bidders indicates some level of market interest and competition.
Sector Analysis
Administrative services are a foundational component of government operations, encompassing a wide range of support functions from clerical tasks to specialized office management. This sector is characterized by a mix of large, established service providers and smaller, niche firms. Federal spending in this area is consistent across agencies, supporting the day-to-day functioning of programs and personnel. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the precise scope of services, but contracts for general administrative support can range from thousands to millions of dollars depending on complexity and duration.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside requirement. The prime contractor, Legacy Resource Consulting Corporation, is likely a mid-to-large-sized business given the contract value.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers, who are responsible for monitoring performance, approving invoices, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. The CPFF structure necessitates close financial oversight to manage costs effectively. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed task order information may be less public. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule contracts for administrative services
- Other agency-specific contracts for office support and administrative management
- Professional Services Schedule (PSS) contracts
- Contracts for facilities management and support services
Risk Flags
- Limited competition raises concerns about potential price inflation.
- CPFF contract type requires diligent oversight to control costs.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders value assessment.
Tags
nasa, administrative-services, legacy-resource-consulting-corporation, cost-plus-fixed-fee, definitive-contract, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, mid-size-contract, office-administrative-services, california, federal-government
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $16.6 million to LEGACY RESOURCE CONSULTING CORPORATION. SAP PURCHASE REQUISITION: 4200179490
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is LEGACY RESOURCE CONSULTING 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 $16.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-01-01. End: 2013-09-20.
What specific administrative services were provided under this contract, and how did their scope evolve over its 6.5-year duration?
The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 561110 (Office Administrative Services). However, it does not detail the specific services rendered. These could range from general clerical support, mailroom operations, records management, travel coordination, to more specialized functions like budget support or human resources administration. The evolution of services over the contract's 6.5-year lifespan (January 1, 2007, to September 20, 2013) would depend on NASA's changing needs and priorities. Without access to individual task orders or contract modifications, it's impossible to ascertain the precise scope and its evolution. This lack of detail limits a thorough assessment of the contract's performance and value.
How does the average annual cost of $2.55 million compare to similar administrative support contracts awarded by NASA or other federal agencies during the same period?
Benchmarking the average annual cost of $2.55 million requires comparing it to similar contracts for Office Administrative Services (NAICS 561110) awarded by NASA or other agencies between 2007 and 2013. Factors influencing cost include the specific services, geographic location, labor mix, and contract type. A Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, like this one, can sometimes be more expensive than fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently, as it includes contractor overhead and profit. Without access to a detailed database of comparable contracts with similar scopes and pricing structures, a precise comparison is difficult. However, for a contract spanning over six years and involving significant administrative functions, this annual expenditure is within a plausible range for federal support services, though its value-for-money depends heavily on the quality and efficiency of the services delivered.
What was the rationale for excluding certain sources in the competition, and did this exclusion impact the final contract price?
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This specific procurement method implies that NASA initially intended a broad competition but subsequently excluded certain potential offerors based on predefined criteria or circumstances. The rationale for such exclusions could range from ensuring specialized capabilities, addressing security concerns, managing organizational conflicts of interest, or meeting specific small business subcontracting goals (though this contract was not a small business set-aside). The impact on the final contract price is uncertain without knowing the number and caliber of excluded bidders. If highly capable competitors were excluded, it could potentially limit price competition and lead to a higher-than-optimal price. Conversely, if exclusions were based on clear, justifiable criteria, the remaining competition might still yield fair market value.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of Legacy Resource Consulting Corporation under this contract?
The provided summary data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance metrics established for this contract. For a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, performance is typically evaluated based on adherence to the Statement of Work (SOW), timely delivery of services, quality standards, and effective cost management. NASA's contracting officer representatives (CORs) would likely have been responsible for monitoring performance. Without explicit KPIs, assessing the contractor's success and the overall value derived from the $16.6 million expenditure is challenging. Standard metrics might include response times for administrative requests, accuracy rates in data processing, or client satisfaction surveys, but these are not detailed here.
How has NASA's spending on administrative services evolved since the award of this contract in 2007?
This contract, awarded in 2007 and ending in 2013, represents a snapshot of NASA's spending on administrative services during that period. Since its conclusion, NASA's overall spending patterns and its approach to procuring administrative support may have evolved significantly. Factors such as agency restructuring, technological advancements (e.g., increased automation, cloud-based solutions), shifts in federal procurement policies (e.g., emphasis on performance-based contracts, small business utilization), and budget fluctuations would influence current spending. To understand the evolution, one would need to analyze NASA's subsequent contracts for similar services, looking at trends in contract types, competition levels, pricing, and the scope of services procured.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Office Administrative Services › Office Administrative Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 2500 MYERS PARK CT, BRENTWOOD, TN, 37027
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $17,042,668
Exercised Options: $17,042,668
Current Obligation: $16,626,020
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-01-01
Current End Date: 2013-09-20
Potential End Date: 2013-09-20 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2022-04-01
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 →