NASA awards $22.3M for MAVEN mission development, focusing on design analysis and risk definition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,330,826 ($22.3M)

Contractor: Regents of the University of California, the

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2007-12-17

End Date: 2014-02-28

Contract Duration: 2,265 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPORT THE MAVEN MISSION DEVELOPMENT BY PERFORMING DESIGN ANALYSES TO FURTHER DEFINE THE MAVEN PFP, ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND RISKS.

Place of Performance

Location: BERKELEY, ALAMEDA County, CALIFORNIA, 94704

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $22.3 million to REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, THE for work described as: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPORT THE MAVEN MISSION DEVELOPMENT BY PERFORMING DESIGN ANALYSES TO FURTHER DEFINE THE MAVEN PFP, ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND RISKS. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical design analysis for the MAVEN mission, aiming to refine its payload and identify implementation risks. 2. The contract value of $22.3 million supports research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences. 3. Performance period spans over 6 years, indicating a long-term commitment to the mission's development phase. 4. The contractor, Regents of the University of California, has a track record in research and development. 5. This contract falls under the R&D sector, specifically focusing on physical and engineering sciences. 6. The contract type is Cost No Fee, suggesting a focus on achieving defined objectives rather than profit. 7. The award was made under full and open competition, implying a broad search for qualified contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $22.3 million for a 6-year R&D effort appears reasonable for a complex space mission like MAVEN. Without specific benchmarks for similar mission development contracts, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the Cost No Fee structure suggests the contractor's primary incentive is mission success rather than profit maximization, which can be a positive indicator for cost control. The focus on design analysis and risk definition is a crucial early-stage activity.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that NASA sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specialized R&D effort. While not a large number of bidders, it implies that multiple entities were capable of undertaking the complex design and analysis required for the MAVEN mission.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to more innovative solutions and potentially better pricing, even in cost-no-fee contracts where the focus is on achieving objectives.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are NASA and the scientific community, who will gain valuable data from the MAVEN mission. The contract delivers essential design analyses and risk assessments for the MAVEN mission's success. The geographic impact is national, with the research and development contributing to U.S. space exploration capabilities. Workforce implications include employment for researchers, engineers, and analysts involved in the mission's early development.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen technical challenges arise during the design phase.
Risk of schedule delays if design complexities are underestimated.
Dependence on the contractor's expertise for critical design decisions.
Limited profit motive in a Cost No Fee contract could potentially impact contractor's proactive problem-solving.
The long performance period increases exposure to evolving technological landscapes.

Positive Signals

Focus on design analysis and risk definition addresses critical early-stage mission planning.
Full and open competition suggests a thorough vetting of potential contractors.
The contractor's specialization in R&D is a positive signal for technical capability.
Cost No Fee contract structure aligns contractor incentives with mission objectives.
The contract supports a high-profile scientific mission with significant national interest.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The aerospace R&D market is characterized by high technical complexity, long development cycles, and significant government investment. NASA's MAVEN mission development is a prime example of this, requiring specialized expertise in areas like atmospheric science and spacecraft engineering. Comparable spending benchmarks in this niche are difficult to establish without detailed project scope, but NASA's consistent investment in planetary science missions highlights the importance of such R&D.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have specific small business set-aside provisions, as indicated by 'sb': false. The primary contractor is a large research institution. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is likely minimal, though the overall success of the MAVEN mission could indirectly benefit small businesses involved in the broader aerospace supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's program management and contracting officers. The agency has established procedures for monitoring contract performance, technical progress, and financial expenditures. Given the R&D nature and Cost No Fee structure, oversight would likely focus on adherence to the defined research scope, milestone achievement, and risk mitigation strategies. Transparency is generally maintained through program reviews and public reporting on mission progress. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

MAVEN Mission
Mars Exploration Program
NASA Research and Development Contracts
Space Science Missions
Planetary Science Research

Risk Flags

Long performance period increases exposure to evolving requirements and technologies.
Cost No Fee structure may reduce contractor's incentive for proactive cost-saving measures beyond scope.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical design analysis requires robust oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $22.3 million to REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, THE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPORT THE MAVEN MISSION DEVELOPMENT BY PERFORMING DESIGN ANALYSES TO FURTHER DEFINE THE MAVEN PFP, ITS IMPLEMENTATION AND RISKS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, THE.

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 $22.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-12-17. End: 2014-02-28.

What is the track record of The Regents of the University of California in supporting NASA's space exploration missions?

The Regents of the University of California, often operating through its various campuses like UCLA and UC Berkeley, has a long and distinguished history of contributing to NASA's scientific endeavors. They have been involved in numerous space missions, providing expertise in areas such as instrument development, data analysis, and theoretical research. For instance, they have played significant roles in missions studying planetary atmospheres, solar physics, and astrophysics. Their involvement in the MAVEN (Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN) mission itself, beyond this specific contract, underscores their continued relevance and capability in supporting complex, long-term space science projects. Their consistent engagement with NASA highlights a strong track record of delivering on research and development objectives critical to space exploration.

How does the $22.3 million contract value compare to similar mission development contracts for planetary science missions?

Assessing the $22.3 million contract value against similar mission development contracts requires careful consideration of scope, duration, and complexity. Planetary science missions, especially those involving atmospheric studies like MAVEN, can vary significantly in cost. Early-stage development contracts focusing on design analysis and risk definition, as this one does, are typically a fraction of the total mission cost. For context, major NASA planetary missions can range from hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in total. A $22.3 million contract over approximately six years for the foundational design and risk assessment phase appears to be within a reasonable range for such specialized R&D. However, direct comparisons are challenging without knowing the specific technical requirements and the number of comparable contracts awarded recently for similar developmental stages.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

The primary risks associated with this contract revolve around the inherent uncertainties in research and development for a complex space mission. These include technical risks, such as unforeseen challenges in defining the MAVEN payload (PFP) and its implementation, which could lead to design flaws or performance issues. Schedule risks are also present, as the design and analysis process might encounter delays due to complexity or evolving requirements. Financial risks, while mitigated by the Cost No Fee structure, could still emerge if the scope expands significantly beyond initial projections. Mitigation strategies likely involve rigorous design reviews, phased development approaches, continuous risk assessment and management by the contractor, and close oversight by NASA program managers. The contract's focus on 'defining risks' inherently aims to proactively identify and address potential issues early in the mission lifecycle.

What is the expected program effectiveness or outcome of the services provided under this contract?

The expected program effectiveness of the services provided under this contract is the successful definition and refinement of the MAVEN mission's Payload Flight Plan (PFP), its implementation strategy, and a comprehensive understanding of associated risks. This foundational work is critical for ensuring the subsequent phases of the MAVEN mission proceed efficiently and effectively. By performing detailed design analyses, the contractor aims to optimize the PFP for scientific return, ensure technical feasibility, and identify potential challenges before they become costly problems during integration, testing, or flight. Ultimately, the outcome is a well-defined mission architecture and a robust risk management framework, which significantly increases the probability of the MAVEN mission achieving its scientific objectives of studying the Martian atmosphere and its escape to space.

How has NASA's spending on similar R&D contracts for planetary science missions evolved over the past decade?

NASA's spending on R&D contracts for planetary science missions has remained a significant and relatively consistent component of its overall budget over the past decade, though subject to fluctuations based on specific mission starts and completions. The agency prioritizes scientific exploration, and planetary science missions, including those focused on Mars like MAVEN, are a cornerstone. While specific figures for 'similar R&D contracts' are hard to isolate without granular data, overall NASA planetary science budgets have generally ranged from approximately $1.5 billion to over $2 billion annually in recent years. This includes funding for mission development, instrument construction, launch services, and ongoing operations. Spending on early-stage development and design analysis contracts, like the one awarded to the University of California, represents a crucial but smaller portion of this larger budget, ensuring the pipeline of future missions remains robust.

What does the 'Cost No Fee' contract type imply about the contractor's motivation and NASA's expectations?

The 'Cost No Fee' (CNF) contract type signifies that the contractor, The Regents of the University of California, will be reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred in performing the contract, but will receive no additional profit or fee. This structure is typically used when the primary objective is the successful completion of a specific research, development, or service task, rather than generating profit for the contractor. For NASA, it implies an expectation that the contractor is motivated by the scientific or mission objectives themselves, or by the opportunity to advance knowledge and capabilities in their field, rather than financial gain. It suggests a partnership focused on achieving a defined outcome, often seen in academic or non-profit research settings. While there's no fee, the contractor is still accountable for performing the work diligently and meeting the contract's requirements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: State of California Controllers Office (UEI: 071549000)

Address: 336 SPROUL HALL, BERKELEY, CA, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Educational Institution, Higher Education, Higher Education (Minority Serving), Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,330,826

Exercised Options: $22,330,826

Current Obligation: $22,330,826

Timeline