NASA awards $52M contract for scientific and technical consulting services to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $52,097,370 ($52.1M)
Contractor: KBR Wyle Services, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2006-06-01
End Date: 2011-08-31
Contract Duration: 1,917 days
Daily Burn Rate: $27.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: NCAS SOW
Place of Performance
Location: COLUMBIA, HOWARD County, MARYLAND, 21046
State: Maryland Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $52.1 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC for work described as: NCAS SOW Key points: 1. Contract value of $52.1 million over a 5-year period. 2. Services provided under Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services. 3. Awarded through full and open competition. 4. Contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee. 5. The contract was awarded as a delivery order. 6. The contractor, KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, has a significant presence in the federal contracting space.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $52.1 million over approximately 5 years suggests a moderate annual spend. Benchmarking against similar consulting services contracts would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes performance, but requires careful monitoring to ensure costs remain reasonable and award fees are justified by exceptional performance. Without specific performance metrics or comparisons to industry standards for these services, a definitive value assessment is challenging.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The presence of 2 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this specific requirement. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it promotes a competitive environment that can drive down prices and improve the quality of services received.
Public Impact
Benefits NASA's scientific and technical research and development efforts. Supports critical mission objectives within the agency. Likely impacts scientific and engineering workforces through employment opportunities. Geographic impact is centered around NASA facilities, primarily in Maryland.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee contracts if not managed diligently.
- Reliance on a single contractor for a significant duration may limit flexibility.
- The specific nature of 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' can be broad, requiring clear SOW to ensure focused delivery.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent process.
- Cost Plus Award Fee structure can incentivize high performance and efficiency.
- The contractor has a history of performing federal contracts, implying experience and capability.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, a broad category encompassing a wide range of specialized expertise. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services, utilizing them for research, development, engineering, and management support across various agencies. Spending in this sector is often driven by complex, long-term projects requiring specialized knowledge that cannot be met solely through in-house capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific sub-specialties within scientific and technical consulting.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside. The prime contractor, KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors, but this is not mandated by the contract's award structure.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contracting officer and program managers. Accountability measures are built into the Cost Plus Award Fee structure, which links a portion of the payment to performance outcomes. Transparency is generally maintained through contract awards databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Research and Development Contracts
- Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
- Federal Professional Services Contracts
- Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost creep in CPAF contracts.
- Need for robust performance monitoring to ensure value.
- Risk of contractor lock-in over a 5-year period.
Tags
scientific-and-technical-consulting, nasa, kbr-wyle-services-llc, cost-plus-award-fee, delivery-order, full-and-open-competition, maryland, professional-services, research-and-development, federal-contracting
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $52.1 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC. NCAS SOW
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC.
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 $52.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-06-01. End: 2011-08-31.
What is the historical spending pattern for KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC with NASA?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC with NASA requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data. Generally, a contractor's history with an agency can indicate a level of trust, established working relationships, and proven capability. Significant past performance can lead to contract renewals or new awards. Conversely, a history of issues or underperformance could raise concerns. Without specific data on prior contracts, dollar amounts, and performance reviews between KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC and NASA, it's difficult to provide a detailed historical spending analysis. However, the award of a $52 million contract suggests a substantial existing or developing relationship.
How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure typically impact contractor performance and government costs for consulting services?
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure is designed to incentivize contractors to exceed performance expectations by offering additional award fees beyond the reimbursement of allowable costs. For consulting services, this can encourage innovation, efficiency, and superior quality of work. The government benefits from potentially higher-than-standard performance. However, CPAF contracts also carry risks. The government must establish clear, objective, and measurable performance criteria to ensure award fees are justified. There's a risk of cost growth if the base cost reimbursement isn't tightly controlled, and the government needs robust oversight to prevent contractors from inflating costs to maximize profit. Effective administration is crucial for CPAF to deliver value.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) likely used to evaluate KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC under this contract?
For a contract involving 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' awarded under a CPAF structure, key performance indicators (KPIs) would likely focus on the quality, timeliness, and effectiveness of the consulting provided. Examples could include the accuracy and utility of technical analyses, the successful completion of project milestones within or ahead of schedule, adherence to budget targets (for cost-reimbursed portions), the innovation and practicality of recommendations, and the overall satisfaction of the NASA program office with the contractor's support. Specific KPIs would be detailed in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and the Performance Work Statement (PWS), forming the basis for determining award fees.
What is the typical market size and competition level for 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' contracts awarded by NASA?
The market for 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' is substantial within the federal government, particularly for agencies like NASA that rely heavily on specialized expertise for research, development, and complex mission operations. Competition levels can vary significantly depending on the specific niche within consulting services. Highly specialized or niche areas might see fewer bidders, while broader consulting needs could attract a larger pool. NASA, being a major science and technology agency, often procures these services. The fact that this contract had 2 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this particular requirement, which is not uncommon for specialized technical consulting.
What are the potential risks associated with a 5-year contract duration for scientific and technical consulting?
A 5-year contract duration for scientific and technical consulting offers stability and allows for deep integration of the contractor's expertise into long-term projects. However, potential risks include technological obsolescence if the consulting focus shifts rapidly, contractor 'lock-in' where the government becomes overly reliant and faces challenges switching providers, and potential for complacency or reduced innovation over time if performance management is not rigorous. Furthermore, the long duration means that initial assumptions about requirements or market conditions might become outdated, necessitating careful contract management and potential modifications to ensure continued relevance and value.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services
Product/Service Code: QUALITY CONTROL, TEST, INSPECTION › QUALITY CONTROL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Honeywell International Inc (UEI: 139691877)
Address: 7000 COLUMBIA GATEWAY DR, COLUMBIA, MD, 21046
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $53,108,779
Exercised Options: $53,108,779
Current Obligation: $52,097,370
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNC06BA05B
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-06-01
Current End Date: 2011-08-31
Potential End Date: 2011-08-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2016-07-14
More Contracts from KBR Wyle Services, LLC
- Bioastronautics Contract-Activities for the Health &productivity of Crews Working and Living in Space — $1.5B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Fpds-Ng Mission Systems Operations Contract (msoc) — $1.0B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- THE Purpose of This Contract IS to Acquire Engineering Services and Related Services to MSD and Related Organizations Throughout Gsfc, AS Required, for the Formulation, Design, Development, Fabrication, Integration, Testing, Verification, and Operations of Space Flight and Ground System Hardware and Software, Including Development and Validation of NEW Technologies to Enable Future Space and Science Missions. the Engineering Areas of Emphasis ARE Multidisciplinary With Concentration in the Mechanical Engineering Areas of Materials, Structural Analysis and Loads, Mechanical Design, Electromechanical Design, Thermal, Contamination and Coatings, Manufacturing and Integration and Test — $728.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 200106!000121!1700!F7004 !marine Corps Logistics Base !M6700499C0002 !a!n!*!n!p00015 !20010228!20080930!041014242!041014242!139691877!n!honeywell Technology Solutions!7000 Columbia Gateway Driv!columbia !md!21046!35000!031!12!jacksonville !duval !florida !+000004292865!n!n!000000000000!j049!maint & Repair of Eq/Maintenance & Repair Shop EQ !a4a!combat Vehicles !2000!NOT Discernable or Classified !811310!*!*!3! ! !C!*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!J!2!006!B! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!d!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $670.1M (Department of Defense)
- Mission Operations Management Services (moms) — $623.8M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
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 →