Logistics services contract for NASA DFRC awarded to Scientific & Commercial Systems Corp for over $22.2M
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $22,241,713 ($22.2M)
Contractor: Scientific & Commercial Systems Corp
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2004-08-01
End Date: 2016-01-31
Contract Duration: 4,200 days
Daily Burn Rate: $5.3K/day
Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT NASA DFRC
Place of Performance
Location: EDWARDS, KERN County, CALIFORNIA, 93523
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $22.2 million to SCIENTIFIC & COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS CORP for work described as: LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT NASA DFRC Key points: 1. The contract demonstrates a long-term commitment to logistics support, spanning over a decade. 2. The firm fixed-price structure suggests a predictable cost environment for the agency. 3. The contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, indicating some level of market vetting. 4. The duration of the contract (4200 days) suggests a need for stable, ongoing support. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 points to facilities support services. 6. The contract's value is substantial, reflecting the critical nature of logistics at a research center.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract's total value of over $22.2 million over approximately 11.5 years suggests a significant investment in logistics management. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for facilities support services at research centers would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm fixed-price type generally offers cost certainty, but the long duration could mask potential inefficiencies if not actively managed. Without specific performance metrics or comparisons to industry standards for logistics operations, a definitive value assessment is challenging.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded as a 'COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER,' which implies it was competed under a broader indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar vehicle that allowed for multiple bidders. The presence of 3 bids suggests a reasonable level of competition for this specific delivery order. However, the overall competition landscape depends on the underlying IDIQ contract's structure and the number of potential bidders for that vehicle.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process, even for a delivery order, generally benefits taxpayers by fostering price discovery and encouraging contractors to offer competitive terms. This helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for the required logistics services.
Public Impact
NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) benefits from streamlined and efficient logistics operations, crucial for its research and development activities. The contract ensures the continuous availability of essential supplies, equipment, and transportation services required for flight testing and aeronautical research. The geographic impact is primarily focused on NASA DFRC in California, supporting its operational needs. The contract likely supports a workforce involved in logistics, warehousing, inventory management, and transportation at the DFRC.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration (over 11 years) could lead to complacency or reduced incentive for innovation if not actively managed.
- Firm fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to contractors cutting corners on quality if performance is not rigorously monitored.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical logistics functions poses a risk if the contractor faces financial or operational difficulties.
Positive Signals
- Competitive award process suggests potential for cost savings and fair pricing.
- Firm fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for NASA DFRC.
- Long-term nature of the contract indicates a stable and reliable provider for essential services.
Sector Analysis
The contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing a range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. This sector is critical for government agencies, research institutions, and private companies alike, ensuring that facilities are functional, safe, and efficient. Spending in this area can vary significantly based on the size and complexity of the facility, as well as the specific services required. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically look at per-square-foot costs for facility management or contract values relative to the operational budget of similar research or government installations.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. Therefore, the primary contractor, Scientific & Commercial Systems Corp, is likely not a small business, or if it is, the contract was not awarded under a small business set-aside program. This means that opportunities for small business subcontracting would depend on the prime contractor's own policies and the structure of the underlying IDIQ vehicle, rather than a direct mandate from this specific delivery order.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), specifically the contracting officer and the program office at DFRC. As a delivery order under a potentially larger contract, oversight mechanisms would likely involve regular performance reviews, site inspections, and adherence to the terms and conditions of the contract. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities Support Contracts
- Logistics and Supply Chain Management Services
- Federal Facilities Maintenance Contracts
- Research and Development Support Services
- Aerospace Logistics Support
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may reduce competitive pressure over time.
- Firm Fixed Price contracts require careful monitoring of performance to ensure quality.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical logistics functions.
Tags
logistics-management, facilities-support-services, nasa, california, competitive-delivery-order, firm-fixed-price, large-contract, research-and-development, aerospace, scientific-commercial-systems-corp
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $22.2 million to SCIENTIFIC & COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS CORP. LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT SERVICES AT NASA DFRC
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is SCIENTIFIC & COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS CORP.
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 $22.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2004-08-01. End: 2016-01-31.
What is the track record of Scientific & Commercial Systems Corp with NASA and other federal agencies?
Scientific & Commercial Systems Corp (SCSC) has a history of performing various service contracts, including logistics and facilities support, for federal agencies. A detailed review of SCSC's contract history with NASA and other entities would reveal their performance ratings, any past performance issues or commendations, and the types of services they have provided. Examining their financial stability and capacity to handle large-scale contracts like this one is also crucial. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would offer insights into their past performance and reliability.
How does the total contract value compare to similar logistics contracts at other NASA centers or comparable research facilities?
The total contract value of over $22.2 million for logistics management services at NASA DFRC over approximately 11.5 years provides a baseline for comparison. To assess value for money, this figure should be benchmarked against contracts for similar services at other NASA centers (e.g., JPL, Ames) or other federal research and development facilities (e.g., Department of Energy labs, DoD research centers). Factors such as facility size, complexity of operations, specific services included (e.g., inventory, transportation, warehousing), and contract type (firm fixed-price vs. cost-plus) must be considered for a fair comparison. A higher value relative to scope might indicate less competitive pricing or a more extensive service requirement.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this logistics contract?
Effective oversight of this logistics contract would necessitate clearly defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These might include metrics such as on-time delivery rates for supplies, inventory accuracy levels, order fulfillment times, cost per shipment, equipment uptime, and safety incident rates within the logistics operations. The contract's performance work statement (PWS) would typically outline these KPIs and the acceptable performance thresholds. Regular reporting against these KPIs by the contractor and review by NASA would be essential for ensuring the contractor is meeting its obligations and delivering value.
What is the potential impact of the long contract duration on cost-effectiveness and service quality?
A contract duration of over 11 years (4200 days) offers stability and continuity for NASA DFRC's logistics operations, potentially leading to efficiencies as the contractor becomes deeply familiar with the agency's needs. However, such long terms can also reduce competitive pressure over time, potentially leading to less favorable pricing or a decline in service innovation if not managed proactively. NASA would need robust performance management and potentially periodic reviews or re-competition clauses to ensure continued cost-effectiveness and high service quality throughout the contract's life.
How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type influence risk allocation and potential for cost overruns?
The Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type places the majority of the cost risk on the contractor, Scientific & Commercial Systems Corp. This means the contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This structure is generally favorable for the government as it provides budget certainty and protects against cost overruns. However, if the contractor underestimates costs or encounters unforeseen issues, they bear the loss. Conversely, if the contractor is highly efficient, they retain the profit, which can incentivize cost control. The risk for the government shifts more towards ensuring the contractor meets performance and quality standards within the fixed price.
What are the historical spending patterns for logistics management services at NASA DFRC or similar facilities?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for logistics management services at NASA DFRC or comparable facilities is crucial for context. This involves examining previous contracts for similar services, their values, durations, and the contractors involved. Understanding trends in spending—whether it has increased, decreased, or remained stable—can indicate changes in operational needs, efficiency improvements, or shifts in agency priorities. Comparing the current contract's value ($22.2M over ~11.5 years) against historical averages or inflation-adjusted figures would help determine if the current award represents a reasonable investment or a significant deviation.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 6907 ROCHAMBEAU PL, SPRINGFIELD, VA, 22153
Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $22,888,349
Exercised Options: $22,417,787
Current Obligation: $22,241,713
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: GS10F0008P
IDV Type: FSS
Timeline
Start Date: 2004-08-01
Current End Date: 2016-01-31
Potential End Date: 2016-01-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2023-06-30
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 →