NASA's $39.1M IT Management Contract Awarded to Arctic Slope Technical Services Faces Scrutiny for Value and Competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $39,120,031 ($39.1M)
Contractor: Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2016-02-01
End Date: 2021-01-31
Contract Duration: 1,826 days
Daily Burn Rate: $21.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: IT
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THAT COORDINATES AND INTEGRATES ALL OTHER TASK ORDERS ON THE CONTRACT; PROVIDES FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND FUNCTIONAL DIRECTION; AND PROVIDES FOR THE MANAGEMENT, SUSTAINMENT AND DELIVERY OF A COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
Place of Performance
Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20546
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $39.1 million to ARCTIC SLOPE TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THAT COORDINATES AND INTEGRATES ALL OTHER TASK ORDERS ON THE CONTRACT; PROVIDES FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND FUNCTIONAL DIRECTION; AND PROVIDES FOR THE MANAGEMENT, SUSTAINMENT AND DELIVER… Key points: 1. The contract's broad scope for comprehensive IT program management suggests potential for cost efficiencies if well-executed. 2. Competition dynamics appear limited, with a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' designation requiring further analysis. 3. Risk indicators include the 'cost plus fixed fee' pricing structure, which can incentivize spending over cost control. 4. Performance context is crucial, as the success of this overarching IT management contract hinges on the effective coordination of numerous task orders. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the IT services sector, a critical area for government operations. 6. The contract's duration of five years indicates a significant, long-term commitment by NASA. 7. The absence of small business set-aside flags raises questions about opportunities for smaller firms in this large contract.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific task order details and performance metrics. The 'cost plus fixed fee' (CPFF) structure, while allowing for flexibility, can lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently. Comparing it to similar broad IT management contracts across federal agencies would be necessary to assess if the $39.1 million expenditure represents a reasonable investment for the services rendered. The lack of detailed performance data makes a definitive value assessment difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This specific designation suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources may have been excluded based on predefined criteria, potentially limiting the pool of bidders. The number of bidders is not provided, making it difficult to fully assess the level of competition. A limited competition, even if initially open, can impact price discovery and potentially lead to less competitive pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean that taxpayers did not benefit from the most aggressive pricing that a broader, more inclusive competition might have yielded. This could translate to a higher overall cost for the services provided.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is NASA, which receives integrated IT program management services to support its operations. Services delivered include comprehensive general management, coordination of task orders, and functional direction for IT programs. The geographic impact is primarily within NASA's operational centers, likely concentrated in areas where NASA has a significant presence. Workforce implications may involve the contractor's personnel supporting NASA's IT infrastructure and management functions.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure can lead to cost overruns if not tightly managed.
- Limited competition may result in suboptimal pricing for taxpayers.
- Broad scope of IT management could lead to inefficiencies if not clearly defined and overseen.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Positive Signals
- Contractor provides comprehensive IT management, potentially leading to better integration and efficiency.
- Long-term contract (5 years) suggests a stable and ongoing need for these services.
- Awarded by NASA, a reputable agency with established procurement processes.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) services sector, specifically focusing on IT program management and general administrative services. The IT services market for the federal government is substantial, with agencies heavily reliant on contractors for managing complex systems and infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale IT support and management contracts awarded by agencies like NASA, DoD, or GSA, considering the scope and duration.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that large businesses were likely the primary bidders and recipients. The absence of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for small businesses to directly participate in this specific contract are limited, though they might be involved as subcontractors if the prime contractor engages in subcontracting. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral to negative in terms of direct contract awards.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Specific oversight mechanisms would include contract officers, technical monitors, and potentially NASA's Inspector General's office, especially if performance issues or financial irregularities arise. Transparency is dependent on NASA's reporting practices regarding contract performance and expenditures. The Inspector General's jurisdiction would cover audits and investigations into fraud, waste, and abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA IT Support Services
- General Management and Administrative Services
- Information Technology Professional Services
- IT Program Management Support
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee pricing structure
- Limited competition designation
- Broad and potentially complex scope of work
- Lack of specific performance metrics in award data
Tags
it-services, nasa, district-of-columbia, cost-plus-fixed-fee, delivery-order, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, large-business, program-management, administrative-services
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $39.1 million to ARCTIC SLOPE TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM THAT COORDINATES AND INTEGRATES ALL OTHER TASK ORDERS ON THE CONTRACT; PROVIDES FOR A GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND FUNCTIONAL DIRECTION; AND PROVIDES FOR THE MANAGEMENT, SUSTAINMENT AND DELIVERY OF A COMPREHENSIVE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is ARCTIC SLOPE TECHNICAL SERVICES, 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 $39.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2016-02-01. End: 2021-01-31.
What is the track record of Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly those involving IT management?
Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc. (ASTS) has a history of federal contracting, primarily with agencies like NASA and the Department of Defense. Their contract portfolio often includes IT services, logistics, and base operations support. For IT management contracts specifically, ASTS has been awarded various task orders and contracts that involve system administration, network support, and IT program coordination. A detailed review of their past performance ratings, any past performance issues or disputes, and the scale of previous IT management contracts would be necessary to fully assess their track record. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) and contract award databases can provide insights into their performance history and client agencies.
How does the $39.1 million contract value compare to similar IT management contracts awarded by NASA or other federal agencies?
Comparing the $39.1 million value requires context regarding the contract's scope, duration, and specific services. This contract, spanning five years (February 2016 - January 2021), averages approximately $7.8 million per year. NASA and other large federal agencies frequently award IT support and management contracts ranging from a few million to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Contracts with similar broad IT program management responsibilities, especially those involving integration and coordination across multiple task orders, can fall within this range. However, without detailed task order breakdowns and performance metrics, a precise value-for-money comparison is difficult. Benchmarking against contracts for similar services, considering the complexity and criticality of NASA's IT needs, would be essential.
What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for IT management services?
The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure can incentivize the contractor to incur higher costs, as their fee remains constant regardless of the total cost. For IT management, this could lead to less stringent cost control measures if not actively managed by the government. Risks include potential cost overruns, scope creep without adequate adjustments to the fee or timeline, and a reduced incentive for the contractor to find the most cost-effective solutions. Robust oversight, clear performance metrics, and diligent cost monitoring by the agency are crucial to mitigate these risks.
How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method in ensuring competitive pricing for IT services?
The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad competition with specific agency needs. It allows for open competition among all responsible sources, but permits the exclusion of specific sources based on documented justifications (e.g., national security, unique capabilities). While intended to be competitive, the exclusion of sources inherently limits the bidder pool compared to unrestricted full and open competition. The effectiveness in ensuring competitive pricing depends heavily on the justification for exclusion and the number of remaining responsible bidders. If the exclusion significantly reduces the number of capable bidders, it could lead to less aggressive pricing and potentially higher costs for the government compared to a scenario with broader participation.
What are the implications of this contract's broad scope for NASA's overall IT infrastructure management?
The broad scope of this contract, encompassing comprehensive general management and coordination of all other task orders on the contract, implies a significant role in NASA's IT ecosystem. It suggests that the contractor is responsible for the overarching strategy, integration, and sustainment of a substantial portion of NASA's IT program. The implication is that effective execution by the contractor could lead to better synergy between different IT functions, improved efficiency, and a more cohesive IT strategy. Conversely, poor management or coordination could result in fragmented services, inefficiencies, and increased risks to NASA's IT infrastructure. The success hinges on the contractor's ability to manage complexity and integrate diverse IT functions effectively.
What is the historical spending pattern for similar IT management services at NASA over the past decade?
Historical spending patterns for similar IT management services at NASA over the past decade show a consistent and significant investment in IT infrastructure and support. NASA, like other major federal agencies, relies heavily on contractors to manage its complex IT systems, networks, and data. Spending in this area typically fluctuates based on agency priorities, major system upgrades, and evolving technological needs. While specific figures for 'IT management' as a distinct category can vary, overall IT spending by NASA has been in the billions of dollars annually. Contracts for IT services, including program management, system integration, cybersecurity, and cloud services, represent a substantial portion of this budget. Trends indicate a move towards more cloud-based solutions and advanced analytics, requiring adaptable IT management strategies.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Office Administrative Services › Office Administrative Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
Address: 7000 MUIRKIRK MEADOWS DR, BELTSVILLE, MD, 20705
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Other Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $41,940,952
Exercised Options: $41,940,952
Current Obligation: $39,120,031
Actual Outlays: $13,176,804
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 3
Total Subaward Amount: $906,534
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNH16CO92B
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2016-02-01
Current End Date: 2021-01-31
Potential End Date: 2021-01-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-09-26
More Contracts from Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc.
- Software and Engineering II Contract. Under This Contract, the Contractor Shall Provide Information Technology (IT) Technical Support to the Applied Engineering and Technology Directorate (aetd) Facilities and Associated Desktops, Including, BUT NOT Limited to, Support of Information System Security Officers, System Administrators, Helpdesk Support, Flight Software Engineers, Software Systems Engineers, and Network Engineers — $388.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- THE Contractor Shall Support the Science Mission Directorates (smds) Solicitation and Peer Review Program Portfolio AS Described in the Remainder of This Statement of Work. the Portfolio Consists of Solicitations, Subordinate Program Elements, Science Planning Workshops, and AD HOC Meetings That Support the Conceptualization or Definition of Smds Strategic Research Objectives. the Contractor's Activities Assist Nasa With Developing and Announcing Research Opportunities; Receiving, Processing, and Evaluating Proposals; and Making Selection Decisions That Result in Research Awards. the Contractor's Work Also Facilitates Science Community Stakeholders Participation in Events That Advance the Development of Nasas Research Strategy — $96.7M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Wing Information&communications Support Service — $49.4M (Department of Defense)
- THE Scope of the Contract Will BE to Provide Spacecraft and Ground System Sustaining Engineering Support for Environmental Operational Satellites Operated by Nesdis Under Ospo, Sustaining Engineering Support for U.S. Instruments on the Metop Satellites, Operational and Ground Systems Engineering Support for Jason-2, Engineering Configuration Management of Mission Operational Databases and Products for ALL Constellations, and Support for Future Ospo Operational Environmental Satellite Programs to Include Jason-3, Goes-R/S/U and Jpss-1 — $46.4M (Department of Commerce)
- Fairbanks Command and Data Acquisition Station (fcdas) Operations and Maintenance Services — $43.2M (Department of Commerce)
View all Arctic Slope Technical Services, Inc. federal contracts →
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 →