NASA's $10.3M environmental services contract with ProXtronics, Inc. awarded in 2003, ran for 6 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $10,292,618 ($10.3M)
Contractor: Proxtronics, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2003-11-01
End Date: 2009-10-31
Contract Duration: 2,191 days
Daily Burn Rate: $4.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 11
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: ENIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: GREENBELT, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20771
State: Maryland Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $10.3 million to PROXTRONICS, INC. for work described as: ENIRONMENTAL SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract utilized a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, which incentivizes contractor performance through award fees tied to specific metrics. 2. Awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a competitive process with specific justifications. 3. The contract duration of 2191 days (approximately 6 years) suggests a long-term need for environmental consulting services. 4. The base contract was a definitive contract, often used for services where the exact quantity or timing is not precisely known upfront. 5. The contract was awarded to ProXtronics, Inc., with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as the contracting agency. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541620 points to Environmental Consulting Services. 7. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting plans for small businesses.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed performance data and award fee payouts. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure aims to ensure value by linking contractor compensation to performance outcomes. However, CPAF contracts can sometimes lead to higher costs if award fees are consistently high. Comparing this to similar environmental consulting contracts awarded by NASA or other agencies during the 2003-2009 period would provide better context on pricing and overall value.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This designation implies that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, possibly due to specific requirements or prior relationships. The number of bidders (11) suggests a reasonable level of interest, but the exclusion of sources might limit the full spectrum of competitive pricing and innovation.
Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even with 11 bidders, may have limited the potential for the most cost-effective offers, potentially resulting in higher costs for taxpayers than a truly unrestricted full and open competition.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary of this contract is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which received environmental consulting services. These services likely supported NASA's compliance with environmental regulations, site assessments, remediation planning, and environmental impact analyses for its facilities and projects. The geographic impact is primarily focused on Maryland (MD), where the contract was administered or where services were rendered. The contract supported a workforce involved in environmental consulting and related technical services.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation to understand the rationale and potential impact on competition.
- The CPAF contract type requires careful monitoring of award fee determinations to ensure they are justified and do not inflate costs unnecessarily.
- Lack of specific details on the environmental services rendered makes it difficult to assess the direct impact and effectiveness of the contract.
- The contract's end date in 2009 means current environmental challenges and solutions may not be reflected in its scope or outcomes.
Positive Signals
- The contract was awarded through a competitive process, indicating an effort to secure services from qualified providers.
- The CPAF structure provides an incentive for the contractor to perform well and meet or exceed performance objectives.
- The long duration suggests a sustained need and potentially a stable relationship for critical environmental services.
Sector Analysis
Environmental consulting services fall under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This sector is crucial for government agencies to navigate complex regulatory landscapes, manage environmental risks, and ensure sustainable operations. The market for these services is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized expertise. NASA, as a major federal agency, requires such services for its research, development, and operational facilities, which can have significant environmental footprints.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have been specifically set aside for small businesses, as indicated by 'ss: false' and 'sb: false'. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless ProXtronics, Inc. voluntarily subcontracted portions of the work to small businesses.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, oversight would focus on monitoring contractor performance against defined metrics to justify award fee payments. Transparency would depend on NASA's internal reporting and any public disclosures made regarding contract performance and expenditures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Environmental Compliance Services
- Environmental Remediation Contracts
- NASA Facilities Management Contracts
- Professional and Technical Services
- Government Consulting Contracts
Risk Flags
- Competition Limitation
- Cost Plus Award Fee Oversight
- Performance Metrics Clarity
Tags
environmental-services, nasa, proxtronics-inc, definitive-contract, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, consulting-services, maryland, professional-scientific-and-technical-services, 2003-2009
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $10.3 million to PROXTRONICS, INC.. ENIRONMENTAL SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is PROXTRONICS, 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 $10.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2003-11-01. End: 2009-10-31.
What specific environmental services were rendered under this contract, and what were the key performance objectives?
The provided data indicates the NAICS code 541620 for Environmental Consulting Services. However, specific details regarding the exact services performed (e.g., site assessments, hazardous waste management, regulatory compliance support, environmental impact statements) are not available. Similarly, the key performance objectives that determined the award fees under the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure are not detailed. Understanding these specifics would be crucial for assessing the contract's effectiveness and the value delivered. Without this information, we can only infer that the services were related to NASA's environmental management needs at its facilities, likely in Maryland.
How did the 'exclusion of sources' impact the competitiveness and final pricing of this contract?
The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' suggests that while the competition was open to all responsible sources, certain entities were excluded based on specific criteria. The reasons for this exclusion are not provided. This could be due to pre-existing relationships, specific technical capabilities required, or other justifications. While 11 bidders participated, the exclusion might have limited the pool of potential offerors, potentially affecting the breadth of competition and the downward pressure on pricing. A more thorough analysis would require understanding the criteria for exclusion and comparing the final price to what might have been achieved in an unrestricted competition.
What was the total amount paid to ProXtronics, Inc. under this contract, considering the Cost Plus Award Fee structure?
The provided data lists the 'awarded value' (a) as $10,292,618.23. However, this figure likely represents the estimated cost plus the potential award fee. Under a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, the final amount paid can vary based on the contractor's performance and the amount of award fee earned. To determine the total amount paid, one would need access to the contract's payment history, which would detail the base cost reimbursement and the actual award fees disbursed. Without this, the awarded value serves as an estimate, and the final expenditure could be higher or lower depending on performance outcomes.
What is the track record of ProXtronics, Inc. with government contracts, particularly with NASA?
The provided data indicates ProXtronics, Inc. was awarded this specific contract by NASA. To assess their track record, a broader search of federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) would be necessary to identify all contracts awarded to ProXtronics, Inc. across various agencies. This would reveal the types of services they provide, their performance history (if available through contract award data or past performance reviews), and their overall experience level with government clients. Without this broader context, it's difficult to definitively characterize their track record beyond this single award.
How does the $10.3 million spending on environmental consulting services compare to NASA's overall budget or similar contracts?
The $10.3 million awarded value for environmental consulting services represents a specific expenditure within NASA's vast budget. To contextualize this, it would be necessary to compare it against NASA's total annual budget during the contract period (2003-2009) and its spending on similar professional services. Additionally, benchmarking against environmental consulting contracts awarded by other large federal agencies (e.g., DoD, EPA, DOE) of similar scope and duration would provide insight into whether this amount is within the expected range for such services. This comparison helps determine if the investment was reasonable relative to agency size and industry norms.
What were the primary risks associated with this contract, and how were they managed?
Potential risks for a CPAF contract like this include cost overruns if performance targets are difficult to meet or if the base cost estimates are inaccurate, and the risk of paying excessive award fees if performance metrics are not rigorously evaluated. Scope creep, where the services expand beyond the original intent, is another common risk. Management of these risks would typically involve robust oversight by the contracting officer and technical team, clear definition and monitoring of performance standards, regular communication with the contractor, and thorough review of justifications for award fee payments. The 'exclusion of sources' might also introduce a risk of not achieving the best possible value.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Environmental Consulting Services
Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 11
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 7200 FULLERTON RD B1, SPRINGFIELD, VA, 22150
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $14,343,743
Exercised Options: $14,343,743
Current Obligation: $10,292,618
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2003-11-01
Current End Date: 2009-10-31
Potential End Date: 2009-10-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2017-11-07
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 →