Raytheon Company awarded $142M NASA contract for Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor for Glory Mission
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $142,045,133 ($142.0M)
Contractor: Raytheon Company
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2004-02-23
End Date: 2013-06-15
Contract Duration: 3,400 days
Daily Burn Rate: $41.8K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: R&D
Official Description: AEROSOL POLARIMETRY SENSOR (APS) FOR THE GLORY MISSION THE GLORY PROJECT IS AN EARTH SCIENCE MISSION SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE GLOBAL MAPPING OF AEROSOLS AS WELL AS TOTAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE MEASUREMENTS. THE GLORY APS CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE PERSONNEL, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, DESIGN, ANALYSIS, DEVELOPMENT, FABRICATION, ASSEMBLY, TESTING, INTEGRATION, CALIBRATION, QUALIFICATION, ACCEPTANCE, STORAGE, STORAGE TESTING OF THE APS INSTRUMENT, SUPPORT FOR THE APS INSTRUMENT INTEGRATION WITH THE SPACECRAFT, LAUNCH OPERATIONS SUPPORT AND POST LAUNCH OPERATIONS SUPPORT FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE YEARS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE REPORTING, REVIEWS, AND DOCUMENTATION OF ALL ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM.
Place of Performance
Location: GOLETA, SANTA BARBARA County, CALIFORNIA, 93117
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $142.0 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY for work described as: AEROSOL POLARIMETRY SENSOR (APS) FOR THE GLORY MISSION THE GLORY PROJECT IS AN EARTH SCIENCE MISSION SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE GLOBAL MAPPING OF AEROSOLS AS WELL AS TOTAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE MEASUREMENTS. THE GLORY APS CONTRACTOR SHAL… Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-award-fee basis, indicating potential for performance-based incentives. 2. The contract spans over 9 years, suggesting a long-term commitment to the Glory Mission. 3. The scope includes extensive engineering, design, fabrication, testing, and post-launch support. 4. NASA is the sole agency involved, focusing on Earth science and solar irradiance measurements. 5. The contract is not competed, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies and market engagement. 6. The value of $142M for a complex scientific instrument over this duration requires careful benchmarking.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $142 million for the Aerosol Polarimetry Sensor (APS) for NASA's Glory Mission appears substantial given the 9-year duration. As a sole-source award, direct comparisons to similar competitively bid contracts are difficult. The cost-plus-award-fee structure allows for flexibility but necessitates robust oversight to ensure value for money. Benchmarking this cost against the complexity and technological requirements of the APS is crucial for a definitive value assessment.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when urgency dictates a direct award. The lack of competition means there was no direct price negotiation through a bidding process, which could potentially lead to higher costs compared to a fully competed contract.
Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there was no opportunity to benefit from competitive pricing that could have driven down costs. Oversight is critical to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is NASA, which will receive the APS instrument essential for the Glory Mission's Earth science objectives. The mission aims to provide global mapping of aerosols and total solar irradiance measurements, contributing to climate research. The geographic impact is global, as the data collected will inform worldwide climate models and understanding. The contract supports a specialized workforce in engineering, design, fabrication, and testing of advanced scientific instruments.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
- Cost-plus-award-fee structure requires diligent oversight to control costs and ensure performance.
- Long contract duration (over 9 years) increases exposure to potential cost overruns or scope creep.
Positive Signals
- Award to Raytheon Company, a known aerospace and defense contractor with relevant expertise.
- Contract scope includes comprehensive lifecycle support, from design to post-launch operations.
- Focus on a critical Earth science mission aligns with national scientific priorities.
Sector Analysis
The contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on scientific instrumentation for space missions. The market for such specialized instruments is often characterized by a limited number of highly capable contractors. NASA's Earth science missions represent a significant area of government spending, with contracts often involving complex engineering and long development cycles. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale scientific instrument development contracts for space agencies.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses within the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract award is likely minimal, unless Raytheon Company voluntarily engages small businesses for specialized support.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily be managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers. The cost-plus-award-fee structure necessitates close monitoring of costs incurred and performance against defined award criteria. Transparency would be facilitated through regular reporting and reviews as stipulated in the contract. While no specific Inspector General jurisdiction is mentioned, NASA's Office of Inspector General typically oversees agency contracts for fraud, waste, and abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Earth Science Missions
- Spacecraft Instrument Development
- Aerosol and Climate Research Programs
- Solar Irradiance Measurement Projects
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Cost-plus-award-fee structure
- Long contract duration
- Potential for cost overruns
- Complexity of scientific instrument development
Tags
nasa, earth-science, space-instrumentation, aerosol-polarimetry-sensor, glory-mission, raytheon-company, sole-source, cost-plus-award-fee, research-and-development, california, definitive-contract, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $142.0 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY. AEROSOL POLARIMETRY SENSOR (APS) FOR THE GLORY MISSION THE GLORY PROJECT IS AN EARTH SCIENCE MISSION SPONSORED BY THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TO PROVIDE GLOBAL MAPPING OF AEROSOLS AS WELL AS TOTAL SOLAR IRRADIANCE MEASUREMENTS. THE GLORY APS CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE PERSONNEL, MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, DESIGN, ANALYSIS, DEVELOPMENT, FABRICATION, ASSEMBLY, TESTING, INTEGRATION, CALIBRATION, QUALIFICATION, ACCEPTAN
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is RAYTHEON COMPANY.
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 $142.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2004-02-23. End: 2013-06-15.
What is Raytheon Company's track record with NASA on similar scientific instrument contracts?
Raytheon Company, now RTX, has a long history of providing complex systems and instruments for NASA and other space agencies. While specific details on prior APS-like contracts are not in this data snippet, their extensive experience in aerospace suggests a capability to handle such projects. Past performance reviews and contract histories with NASA would provide a more detailed picture of their reliability, adherence to schedule, and cost management on comparable endeavors. Assessing their performance on other NASA Earth science or space exploration missions would be a key step in evaluating their suitability for this contract.
How does the $142 million cost compare to similar Earth observation instrument contracts?
Benchmarking the $142 million cost for the APS requires comparing it to other complex, long-duration scientific instrument development contracts for space missions. Factors such as instrument complexity, technological innovation required, development timeline, and the specific scientific objectives heavily influence cost. Without access to a database of comparable contracts, a precise comparison is difficult. However, for a multi-year development and support contract for a sophisticated sensor like the APS, this figure is within the expected range for major space agency procurements. A detailed cost analysis would involve breaking down the contract into its constituent parts (e.g., design, fabrication, testing, integration) and comparing those to industry standards.
What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award for a critical mission instrument?
The primary risks associated with a sole-source award for a critical mission instrument like the APS include a lack of competitive pricing, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers. Without competition, there may be less incentive for the contractor to innovate or optimize efficiency. Furthermore, if the sole-source contractor encounters significant technical or financial difficulties, there are limited alternative options for NASA to ensure mission success. This situation also reduces transparency in the procurement process and can make it harder to objectively assess the fairness of the price. Robust contract management and oversight become even more critical in sole-source situations.
How effective is the cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) contract type in managing costs for complex R&D projects?
The Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) contract type is designed to provide flexibility for complex research and development projects where the final costs and performance outcomes are uncertain. It allows the contractor to be reimbursed for allowable costs while also earning an award fee based on achieving specific performance objectives. This structure aims to incentivize contractor performance beyond just cost control. However, its effectiveness hinges on the clarity and measurability of the award criteria and the rigor of NASA's oversight in evaluating performance. If award criteria are poorly defined or oversight is lax, CPAF can still lead to cost overruns without commensurate performance gains.
What is the historical spending trend for NASA's Earth Science Division on instrument development?
Historical spending trends for NASA's Earth Science Division on instrument development typically show significant investment in complex, long-term projects. Budgets fluctuate based on mission priorities, congressional appropriations, and the lifecycle stages of various missions. Major instrument development contracts, like the one for the APS, often represent substantial portions of annual divisional spending. Analyzing past budgets would reveal patterns of investment in areas like climate monitoring, atmospheric research, and Earth observation, indicating the typical scale and duration of such procurements. This contract's value should be viewed within the context of NASA's overall historical commitment to Earth science R&D.
What are the implications of the 3-year minimum post-launch operations support requirement?
The requirement for a minimum of three years of post-launch operations support is significant. It ensures that the contractor, having developed the instrument, is responsible for its initial operational phase, including data calibration, anomaly resolution, and performance monitoring. This continuity is crucial for mission success, as instruments often require fine-tuning and troubleshooting after deployment. It also implies ongoing costs for NASA beyond the initial development and integration, which need to be factored into the total mission budget. This extended support period also provides valuable feedback for future instrument designs.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: SPACE VEHICLES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 6380 HOLLISTER AVE, GOLETA, CA, 93117
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $147,412,882
Exercised Options: $147,412,882
Current Obligation: $142,045,133
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2004-02-23
Current End Date: 2013-06-15
Potential End Date: 2013-06-15 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2016-09-16
More Contracts from Raytheon Company
- Federal Contract — $5.7B (Department of Defense)
- TEN Fire Units for Qatar — $5.6B (Department of Defense)
- GPS Advanced Control Segment (OCX) Phase B Blocks 1 and 2 — $4.5B (Department of Defense)
- An/Spy-6(v) Hardware Production — $3.3B (Department of Defense)
- Predominant - Patriot UAE — $3.0B (Department of Defense)
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 →