NASA's $506.6M engineering services contract for ground systems and mission operations awarded to KBR Wyle Services, LLC
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $506,562,852 ($506.6M)
Contractor: KBR Wyle Services, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2017-06-01
End Date: 2022-05-31
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $277.6K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF GROUND SYSTEMS AND MISSION OPERATIONS 2 (GSMO-2). THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCUREMENT IS TO ACQUIRE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR GROUND SYSTEMS AND MISSION OPERATIONS SUPPORT TO MORE THAN 20 MISSIONS IN PHASES OF THE LIFECYCLE FROM PRE-PHASE A TO PHASE E. THE SCOPE ENCOMPASSES CONCEPT STUDIES, DEVELOPMENT (DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION), INTEGRATION, TEST, VERIFICATION, OPERATIONS, SUSTAINMENT OF MISSION OPERATIONS SYSTEMS, SUBSYSTEMS, AND OPERATIONS PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES. SERVICES INVOLVE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, FACILITY ENGINEERING, LAUNCH AND EARLY ORBIT SUPPORT, FLIGHT OPERATIONS, FLIGHT DYNAMICS SUPPORT, AND SUSTAINING ENGINEERING.
Place of Performance
Location: GREENBELT, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20771
State: Maryland Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $506.6 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF GROUND SYSTEMS AND MISSION OPERATIONS 2 (GSMO-2). THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCUREMENT IS TO ACQUIRE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR GROUND SYSTEMS AND MISSION OPERATIONS SUPPORT TO MORE THAN 20 MISSIONS IN PHASES OF THE LIFECYCLE FROM PRE-PHASE A TO PHASE E. THE SCOPE ENCOMPAS… Key points: 1. Contract provides critical engineering services for over 20 NASA missions across their lifecycle. 2. Scope includes a wide range of services from concept studies to sustainment of mission operations. 3. The contract's cost-plus-award-fee structure incentivizes performance and cost control. 4. Awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for these specialized services. 5. The duration of 5 years indicates a long-term need for these essential support functions. 6. The contract value of over $500 million highlights the significant investment in space mission infrastructure.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $506.6 million over five years for comprehensive engineering services appears reasonable given the critical nature and broad scope of supporting over 20 NASA missions. While specific benchmarks for this unique set of services are difficult to ascertain without more granular data, the cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) structure allows for performance-based incentives, which can drive value. Comparing this to similar large-scale, multi-mission support contracts within NASA or other space agencies would provide a more precise value assessment.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a competitive environment for these specialized engineering services. A competitive process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government, as contractors vie for the award.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive award process, which is expected to yield a more cost-effective solution for essential mission support services.
Public Impact
NASA's mission success is directly supported, ensuring the continuity and effectiveness of over 20 space missions. The contract enables critical engineering services, including systems engineering, flight operations, and sustainment, vital for space exploration and research. Geographic impact is primarily national, supporting NASA's centers and operations across the United States. The contract supports a specialized workforce of engineers and technical professionals, contributing to the aerospace industry's talent pool.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee contracts if not managed diligently.
- Dependence on a single contractor for a broad range of critical mission support services could pose a risk if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a healthy market and potential for competitive pricing.
- The Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes contractor performance and efficiency.
- The extensive scope of services suggests a comprehensive approach to mission support, potentially leading to integrated and effective operations.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting the aerospace and defense industry. The market for such specialized services is characterized by high technical barriers to entry and a limited number of highly qualified firms. NASA's spending in this area is crucial for maintaining its complex operational capabilities and advancing its scientific and exploratory objectives. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely be found in other large government agencies with extensive research, development, and operational missions, such as the Department of Defense or the National Science Foundation.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside. However, the prime contractor, KBR Wyle Services, LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill parts of the contract scope, depending on their subcontracting plans and the availability of specialized small business capabilities.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract is likely managed by NASA's contracting officers and program managers, who are responsible for monitoring performance, approving payments, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure includes specific criteria for award fees, which serve as a performance metric. Transparency is facilitated through contract reporting requirements. While not explicitly stated, NASA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Mission Support Services
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Ground Systems Development
- Space Operations Support
- Systems Engineering and Integration
Risk Flags
- Long-term contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation.
- CPAF structure requires diligent oversight to ensure value for money.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical operations.
Tags
engineering-services, nasa, national, definitive-contract, large-value, full-and-open-competition, cost-plus-award-fee, mission-operations, ground-systems, aerospace, maryland
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $506.6 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC. IGF::OT::IGF GROUND SYSTEMS AND MISSION OPERATIONS 2 (GSMO-2). THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROCUREMENT IS TO ACQUIRE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR GROUND SYSTEMS AND MISSION OPERATIONS SUPPORT TO MORE THAN 20 MISSIONS IN PHASES OF THE LIFECYCLE FROM PRE-PHASE A TO PHASE E. THE SCOPE ENCOMPASSES CONCEPT STUDIES, DEVELOPMENT (DEFINITION AND IMPLEMENTATION), INTEGRATION, TEST, VERIFICATION, OPERATIONS, SUSTAINMENT OF MISSION OPERATIONS SYSTEMS, SUBSYSTEMS, AND OPERATIONS PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES. SERVICES INVO
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is KBR WYLE SERVICES, 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 $506.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2017-06-01. End: 2022-05-31.
What is the historical spending trend for similar ground systems and mission operations engineering services at NASA?
Analyzing historical spending trends for similar services at NASA is crucial for understanding budget allocation and identifying potential patterns of cost escalation or efficiency. While specific data for 'Ground Systems and Mission Operations Engineering Services' is not provided, NASA consistently invests heavily in mission support. Over the past decade, NASA's budget allocations for operations and mission support have remained substantial, often fluctuating based on new program starts and existing mission lifecycles. Contracts for engineering services, systems integration, and operations support are recurring necessities. For instance, previous large-scale contracts for similar support functions, such as those for the Space Shuttle program's end-of-life or the development of new exploration initiatives, would offer comparative spending figures. Without direct historical data for this specific service category, a general observation is that NASA's commitment to maintaining and operating its complex fleet of spacecraft and ground infrastructure necessitates continuous, significant investment in engineering expertise.
How does the awarded price compare to independent cost estimates or industry benchmarks for similar engineering services?
Direct comparison of the awarded price ($506.6 million) to independent cost estimates or specific industry benchmarks for this unique combination of services is challenging without access to proprietary data or detailed cost breakdowns. However, the contract's 'full and open competition' award with 3 bidders suggests that the pricing was scrutinized in a competitive environment. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure implies that the base cost is subject to negotiation and oversight, with additional fees contingent on performance. To assess value, one would ideally compare the proposed labor rates, overheads, and profit margins against government-wide contract vehicles for engineering services (e.g., NASA SEWP, GSA schedules) or against publicly available data from similar large-scale aerospace support contracts. The fact that it was competed suggests NASA sought competitive proposals, aiming for a price that reflects market conditions for these specialized skills.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the 'award fee' component of this contract?
The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to determine the 'award fee' for the KBR Wyle Services, LLC contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, for Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts, award fees are typically tied to the contractor's performance against clearly defined criteria that go beyond minimum contract requirements. These criteria often include factors such as technical performance (e.g., system reliability, successful mission support), schedule adherence, cost control effectiveness, management innovation, and responsiveness to government needs. NASA contracting officers would establish a performance evaluation plan outlining these metrics, their weighting, and the associated fee levels. The contractor's performance would be periodically assessed against these KPIs, leading to the determination of the award fee amount, incentivizing exceptional service delivery.
What is the track record of KBR Wyle Services, LLC in delivering similar large-scale engineering and mission operations support contracts?
KBR Wyle Services, LLC, as a significant player in the government contracting space, has a substantial track record in providing engineering, scientific, and technical support services, including those related to aerospace and mission operations. They have historically supported various NASA programs and other government agencies with complex technical requirements. Their experience often encompasses systems engineering, integration, testing, and operational support for space missions. Evaluating their specific performance on contracts of similar scale and complexity would involve reviewing past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or awards, and their overall reputation within the aerospace community. Given their established presence, it is likely they possess the requisite experience and infrastructure to manage a contract of this magnitude, though a deeper dive into their specific performance metrics on prior NASA contracts would provide a more definitive assessment.
What are the potential risks associated with the long duration (5 years) and significant value ($506.6M) of this contract?
The long duration and significant value of this contract present several potential risks. Firstly, there's the risk of cost escalation over the five-year period due to inflation, unforeseen technical challenges, or changes in labor costs, which could strain the budget if not managed effectively within the CPAF structure. Secondly, a long-term reliance on a single contractor could lead to complacency or a decrease in competitive pressure over time, potentially impacting innovation or efficiency. There's also the risk of contractor performance degradation or the contractor facing financial instability, which could jeopardize critical mission operations. Furthermore, technological advancements during the contract's life might render certain aspects of the contracted services or systems obsolete, requiring costly modifications or re-procurements. Robust oversight and performance management are crucial to mitigate these risks.
How does this contract contribute to NASA's broader strategic goals in space exploration and scientific research?
This contract is fundamental to NASA's broader strategic goals by providing the essential engineering backbone for the sustained operation and success of numerous space missions. These missions, spanning Earth science, astrophysics, planetary exploration, and human spaceflight, rely heavily on robust ground systems and seamless mission operations for data acquisition, command and control, and overall mission integrity. By ensuring the effective functioning of these critical support elements, the contract directly enables NASA to achieve its scientific objectives, gather vital data, and advance human knowledge of the universe. It underpins the reliability and longevity of NASA's space assets, allowing for the continuous pursuit of discovery and innovation in space exploration.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNG16551793R
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 7000 COLUMBIA GATEWAY DR STE 100, COLUMBIA, MD, 21046
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $530,400,000
Exercised Options: $530,400,000
Current Obligation: $506,562,852
Actual Outlays: $337,556,626
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 92
Total Subaward Amount: $53,963,991
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2017-06-01
Current End Date: 2022-05-31
Potential End Date: 2022-05-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-01-14
More Contracts from KBR Wyle Services, LLC
- Bioastronautics Contract-Activities for the Health &productivity of Crews Working and Living in Space — $1.5B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Fpds-Ng Mission Systems Operations Contract (msoc) — $1.0B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- THE Purpose of This Contract IS to Acquire Engineering Services and Related Services to MSD and Related Organizations Throughout Gsfc, AS Required, for the Formulation, Design, Development, Fabrication, Integration, Testing, Verification, and Operations of Space Flight and Ground System Hardware and Software, Including Development and Validation of NEW Technologies to Enable Future Space and Science Missions. the Engineering Areas of Emphasis ARE Multidisciplinary With Concentration in the Mechanical Engineering Areas of Materials, Structural Analysis and Loads, Mechanical Design, Electromechanical Design, Thermal, Contamination and Coatings, Manufacturing and Integration and Test — $728.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 200106!000121!1700!F7004 !marine Corps Logistics Base !M6700499C0002 !a!n!*!n!p00015 !20010228!20080930!041014242!041014242!139691877!n!honeywell Technology Solutions!7000 Columbia Gateway Driv!columbia !md!21046!35000!031!12!jacksonville !duval !florida !+000004292865!n!n!000000000000!j049!maint & Repair of Eq/Maintenance & Repair Shop EQ !a4a!combat Vehicles !2000!NOT Discernable or Classified !811310!*!*!3! ! !C!*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!J!2!006!B! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!d!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $670.1M (Department of Defense)
- Mission Operations Management Services (moms) — $623.8M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
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 →