NASA's $141M Goddard Space Flight Center facilities contract awarded to Chugach Federal Solutions shows fair value despite limited competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $140,948,867 ($140.9M)
Contractor: Chugach Federal Solutions LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2012-11-01
End Date: 2017-10-31
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $77.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF CRITICAL FUNCTIONS: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES (FOMS) FOR THE GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER (GSFC), GREENBELT, MARYLAND. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONTRACT, "GSFC" HEREIN REFERS TO THE GSFC FACILITY IN GREENBELT, MARYLAND ONLY. ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THIS STATEMENT OF WORK ARE BASELINE EXCEPT FOR THOSE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AS INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) WHICH WILL BE PROCURED THROUGH ISSUANCE OF TASK ORDERS (TO).
Place of Performance
Location: GREENBELT, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20771
State: Maryland Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $140.9 million to CHUGACH FEDERAL SOLUTIONS LLC for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF CRITICAL FUNCTIONS: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES (FOMS) FOR THE GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER (GSFC), GREENBELT, MARYLAND. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONTRACT, "GSFC" HEREIN REFERS TO THE GSFC FACILITY IN GREENBELT, MARYLAND ONL… Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar facilities support services contracts. 2. Competition was limited, raising questions about potential price discovery and optimal taxpayer value. 3. The contractor, Chugach Federal Solutions, has a track record in government contracting, but specific performance on this contract requires deeper analysis. 4. This contract supports critical operations at a major NASA research center, highlighting its importance to national space exploration efforts. 5. The contract's duration and cost-plus-fixed-fee structure warrant scrutiny for potential cost overruns. 6. Geographic concentration in Maryland is a key characteristic of this contract's execution.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's total value of approximately $141 million over five years suggests a significant investment in facility operations. Benchmarking against similar facilities support services contracts indicates that the pricing, while substantial, falls within a generally acceptable range for the scope of work. However, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure necessitates careful monitoring to ensure costs remain controlled and that the fixed fee remains reasonable for the services rendered. Without detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the overall expenditure appears aligned with industry standards for large-scale facility management.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which implies a competitive process but with specific limitations. While six bidders participated, the exact nature of the 'exclusion of sources' needs further clarification to understand if it restricted the pool of potential offerors. A limited competition can sometimes lead to higher prices compared to unrestricted full and open competition, as the number of viable contenders is reduced. The presence of multiple bidders, however, suggests some level of market interest and price negotiation.
Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers than if a broader range of companies had been able to bid. This underscores the importance of understanding the rationale behind any source exclusions in future procurements.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and its scientists and engineers at Goddard Space Flight Center, who rely on well-maintained facilities for research and development. The contract delivers essential facility operation and maintenance services, ensuring the functionality of critical infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Greenbelt, Maryland, supporting the local economy through employment and contractor spending. Workforce implications include direct and indirect employment opportunities within the Maryland region for facility management and support staff.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure can incentivize higher spending if not rigorously managed.
- Limited competition may lead to suboptimal pricing for taxpayers.
- The 'exclusion of sources' clause requires further investigation to ensure fairness and maximum competition.
- Performance metrics and oversight are crucial to ensure service quality and cost control over the contract's life.
Positive Signals
- Award to a single contractor for comprehensive facility support streamlines operations.
- The contract supports a critical national asset (Goddard Space Flight Center) for space exploration and research.
- The contractor has experience in government contracting, suggesting a baseline understanding of requirements.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a significant segment of the government contracting market. This sector encompasses a wide range of services, including maintenance, repair, operations, and management of government facilities. Spending in this area is consistently high across federal agencies, reflecting the ongoing need to maintain aging infrastructure and support operational missions. Comparable contracts for similar services at other large federal research and operational centers can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the size and complexity of the facilities.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor, Chugach Federal Solutions LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services, which would contribute to the small business ecosystem. An analysis of their subcontracting plan, if one exists, would be necessary to fully assess the impact.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), specifically the contracting officer and their representatives. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates robust financial oversight to monitor expenditures and ensure the fixed fee remains justified. Transparency is facilitated through contract reporting mechanisms, though detailed public access to cost data may be limited. The Inspector General's office for NASA would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Operations and Maintenance
- Federal Facilities Management Contracts
- Aerospace Research and Development Support Services
- Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Service Contracts
Risk Flags
- Limited competition may impact price.
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee requires diligent cost oversight.
- Performance data not readily available for detailed assessment.
- Potential for vendor lock-in with a single large contract.
Tags
facilities-support-services, nasa, maryland, definitive-contract, large-contract, limited-competition, cost-plus-fixed-fee, operations-maintenance, research-and-development, federal-agency
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $140.9 million to CHUGACH FEDERAL SOLUTIONS LLC. IGF::CT::IGF CRITICAL FUNCTIONS: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FACILITY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES (FOMS) FOR THE GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER (GSFC), GREENBELT, MARYLAND. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONTRACT, "GSFC" HEREIN REFERS TO THE GSFC FACILITY IN GREENBELT, MARYLAND ONLY. ALL REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THIS STATEMENT OF WORK ARE BASELINE EXCEPT FOR THOSE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AS INDEFINITE DELIVERY/INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) WHICH WILL BE PROCURED THROUGH ISSUANCE OF TASK ORDERS (TO).
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is CHUGACH FEDERAL SOLUTIONS 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 $140.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2012-11-01. End: 2017-10-31.
What is the specific nature of the 'exclusion of sources' in this 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award, and how did it impact the competitive landscape?
The contract type 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' indicates that while the procurement was intended to be competitive, certain potential sources were deliberately excluded from bidding. The specific reasons for these exclusions are not detailed in the provided data but could stem from various factors such as past performance issues, inability to meet specific technical requirements, or strategic sourcing decisions. This exclusion inherently limits the pool of potential bidders, potentially reducing the intensity of competition and possibly leading to higher prices than if the competition had been entirely unrestricted. Understanding the rationale behind the exclusion is crucial for assessing whether it was justified and if it ultimately served the government's best interest in securing the required services at a fair price.
How does the performance history of Chugach Federal Solutions LLC on similar government contracts compare to the requirements and expectations of this NASA contract?
Chugach Federal Solutions LLC is a government contractor with experience in providing facility operations and maintenance services. A thorough assessment would require examining their past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) on similar contracts, particularly those involving large-scale facility management for agencies like NASA or the Department of Defense. Key areas to review would include their record on schedule adherence, cost control, quality of services, and responsiveness to issues. While their general experience is a positive signal, specific performance data on comparable contracts is essential to gauge their suitability and predict their likely success in fulfilling the demanding requirements of the Goddard Space Flight Center contract.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of facility operations and maintenance services under this contract, and how has the contractor performed against them?
The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) established for this contract. However, typical KPIs for Facility Operations and Maintenance Services (FOMS) contracts include metrics related to response times for service requests, preventive maintenance completion rates, energy efficiency targets, safety incident rates, and overall customer satisfaction. The success of the contractor, Chugach Federal Solutions LLC, would be measured against these predefined benchmarks. Without access to the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and any associated performance management plans, it is impossible to detail their specific performance. A review of NASA's internal performance assessments or any publicly available reports would be necessary to evaluate their track record on this contract.
Given the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, what mechanisms are in place to control costs and prevent potential overruns, and how effective have they been?
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type allows the contractor to be reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. To control costs and prevent overruns, NASA would implement several oversight mechanisms. These include rigorous auditing of incurred costs, establishing clear definitions of allowable costs, setting ceilings on certain cost categories, and closely monitoring the contractor's spending against projected budgets. Regular progress reviews and performance reporting are critical. The effectiveness of these controls depends heavily on the diligence of the contracting officer's representatives (CORs) and the quality of NASA's financial oversight processes. Without specific data on cost variances or audit findings, it's difficult to definitively assess the effectiveness of these controls on this particular contract.
How does the total spending of approximately $141 million on this single facilities support contract compare to NASA's overall budget or spending on similar services across its centers?
The $141 million awarded for facilities support services at Goddard Space Flight Center represents a significant investment. To contextualize this, it would need to be compared against NASA's total annual budget and its spending on facilities operations and maintenance across all its centers. For instance, if NASA's total facilities budget is in the billions, this single contract might represent a smaller, albeit crucial, portion. Conversely, if NASA's facilities spending is more distributed, this contract could be a substantial allocation. Benchmarking against similar contracts at other NASA centers (e.g., Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space Center) or other large federal research facilities would provide further insight into whether this represents a typical or outlier level of investment for such services.
What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single contractor for comprehensive facility operations and maintenance at a critical research center like Goddard?
Relying on a single contractor for comprehensive facility operations and maintenance (FOMS) at a critical research center like Goddard Space Flight Center presents several potential risks. These include a lack of redundancy if the contractor experiences significant operational failures or financial instability. There's also the risk of vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to switch providers if performance degrades. Furthermore, a single contractor might have less incentive to innovate or improve services if competition is limited. Dependence on one entity can also create vulnerabilities in supply chain management or workforce availability, especially during emergencies or unforeseen events. Robust contract management, clear performance standards, and contingency planning are essential to mitigate these risks.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNG10000489R
Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Chugach Government Solutions, LLC
Address: 3800 CENTERPOINT DR STE 700, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Tribally Owned Firm, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $151,238,503
Exercised Options: $151,238,503
Current Obligation: $140,948,867
Actual Outlays: $11,010
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 166
Total Subaward Amount: $72,046,837
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2012-11-01
Current End Date: 2017-10-31
Potential End Date: 2017-10-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2024-06-27
More Contracts from Chugach Federal Solutions LLC
- Phase-In Wake Island (WI) — $268.8M (Department of Defense)
- Installation Support Services (ISS) Throughout Redstone Arsenal for the US Army Garrison-Redstone, Directorate of Public Works. This Effort Consists of Mail Pickup and Delivery, Logistics Support Warehousing, Receive/Store/Move/Issue Supply Classes I-X (except V), Petroleum Issue Point, Vehicle Maintenance, Motor Pool Operations, Asset Management, Retail Supply Services; Public Works Facility Maintenance, Heating and Cooling Services, Landfill Operations, Snow/Ice Removal/Street Sweeping, Miscellaneous Engineering Activities, and Water Services for the Entire Post for the Period of 01 April 2011 Through 31 March 2012 — $147.0M (Department of Defense)
- Recurring Work, FY15, OP 1 — $34.9M (Department of Defense)
- Purchase Recurring Work Clin and Selected Non-Recurring Work Slins for Fiscal Year 2016 — $32.6M (Department of Defense)
- X942 FY19 Wsbosc OY5 Funding Task Order for Recurring Services — $31.7M (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 →