NASA's $23.3M LAMPS Contract Awarded to GENTECH Partners for Administrative, Media, and Professional Services
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $23,328,409 ($23.3M)
Contractor: Gentech Partners Joint Venture
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2012-09-01
End Date: 2018-05-31
Contract Duration: 2,098 days
Daily Burn Rate: $11.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::CL::IGF CLOSELY ASSOCIATED", LANGLEY ADMINISTRATIVE, MEDIA, AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (LAMPS) CONTRACT.ID/IQ FIRM FIXED PRICE TASK ORDERS W/MINIMAL OTHER DIRECT COST (ODC) AS COST REIMBURSABLE NOT TO EXCEED. APPROXIMATELY: 1/3 ADMINISTRATIVE, 1/3 MEDIA AND 1/3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAMPS TO FOR MEDIA SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: HAMPTON, HAMPTON CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23681
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $23.3 million to GENTECH PARTNERS JOINT VENTURE for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF CLOSELY ASSOCIATED", LANGLEY ADMINISTRATIVE, MEDIA, AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (LAMPS) CONTRACT.ID/IQ FIRM FIXED PRICE TASK ORDERS W/MINIMAL OTHER DIRECT COST (ODC) AS COST REIMBURSABLE NOT TO EXCEED. APPROXIMATELY: 1/3 ADMINISTRATIVE, 1/3 MEDIA AND 1/3 PROFESSIONAL S… Key points: 1. Contract primarily covers administrative, media, and professional services, with a significant portion allocated to media services. 2. The contract utilized a Firm Fixed Price structure for task orders, with minimal Cost Reimbursable elements. 3. Awarded through Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources, indicating a competitive process. 4. The contract duration was approximately 2098 days, spanning from September 2012 to May 2018. 5. The primary agency and servicing agency was NASA, indicating a focus on supporting agency operations. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541611 points to Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The total award value of $23.3 million over nearly six years suggests a moderate level of investment for the services provided. Benchmarking against similar contracts for administrative, media, and professional services within NASA or other federal agencies would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm fixed-price nature of most task orders generally promotes cost control, but the inclusion of minimal cost-reimbursable elements warrants attention to ensure they remain within reasonable bounds. Without specific per-unit cost data or detailed service breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the overall spending appears aligned with typical federal support service contracts.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources.' This specific procurement method implies that while the competition was open, certain sources may have been excluded based on predefined criteria, potentially narrowing the field of bidders. The exact reasons for this exclusion are not detailed but could relate to specific capabilities or prior performance. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a robust competitive environment was intended.
Taxpayer Impact: This procurement approach, while competitive, may have limited the pool of potential offerors. Taxpayers benefit from the competition that drives potentially better pricing and service offerings, but the exclusion of sources could mean that alternative solutions or lower costs from excluded vendors were not considered.
Public Impact
Federal agencies, particularly NASA, benefit from enhanced administrative, media, and professional support services. The contract facilitates the delivery of essential operational and communication services to support agency missions. Services are likely concentrated within the geographic areas served by NASA facilities, primarily in Virginia. The contract supports a workforce skilled in administrative management, media production, and consulting services.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The 'Exclusion of Sources' clause in the competition method warrants further investigation to understand its impact on market reach and potential cost savings.
- The inclusion of 'minimal other direct cost as cost reimbursable' requires monitoring to ensure cost overruns are controlled.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to fully assess the effectiveness and efficiency of services delivered.
Positive Signals
- The use of Firm Fixed Price for the majority of the contract provides cost certainty for the government.
- Awarding through a competitive process, even with exclusions, generally leads to better value than sole-source awards.
- The contract duration suggests a stable, long-term need for these services within NASA.
Sector Analysis
The federal sector for administrative, media, and professional services is vast, encompassing a wide range of support functions essential for agency operations. This contract falls under management consulting services, a segment that consistently sees significant federal investment. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within the broader professional services category, where agencies procure expertise for strategic planning, communications, and operational efficiency. The market for these services is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized capabilities. This contract represents a portion of NASA's overall expenditure on support services, contributing to its ability to execute its core missions.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the direct impact on small business set-asides is minimal. However, the prime contractor, GENTECH PARTNERS JOINT VENTURE, may have subcontracting plans that include small businesses. Without specific subcontracting data, it's difficult to assess the broader impact on the small business ecosystem. The nature of the services (administrative, media, professional) often involves specialized skills that could be sourced from small businesses, but this was not mandated by the contract's primary structure.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been primarily managed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As an ID/IQ contract with firm fixed-price task orders, oversight would focus on ensuring task orders met defined requirements, were within scope, and were delivered on time and within budget. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal procurement databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse, with NASA's Office of Inspector General being the relevant body. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance standards outlined in the task orders and the contract's overall terms and conditions.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Administrative Support Contracts
- Federal Media Services Contracts
- Professional Services Contracts
- Management and Consulting Services
- IDIQ Contracts
- Firm Fixed Price Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to Cost Reimbursable component.
- Risk associated with 'Exclusion of Sources' limiting competition.
- Difficulty in assessing performance without specific metrics.
- Potential for vendor lock-in if competition was significantly limited.
Tags
nasa, administrative-support, media-services, professional-services, consulting, firm-fixed-price, task-order, full-and-open-competition, virginia, 2012-2018, management-consulting, federal-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $23.3 million to GENTECH PARTNERS JOINT VENTURE. IGF::CL::IGF CLOSELY ASSOCIATED", LANGLEY ADMINISTRATIVE, MEDIA, AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (LAMPS) CONTRACT.ID/IQ FIRM FIXED PRICE TASK ORDERS W/MINIMAL OTHER DIRECT COST (ODC) AS COST REIMBURSABLE NOT TO EXCEED. APPROXIMATELY: 1/3 ADMINISTRATIVE, 1/3 MEDIA AND 1/3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAMPS TO FOR MEDIA SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GENTECH PARTNERS JOINT VENTURE.
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 $23.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2012-09-01. End: 2018-05-31.
What was the specific nature of the 'media services' provided under this contract, and how did they contribute to NASA's mission?
The contract data indicates that approximately one-third of the services were dedicated to media services. While specific details are not provided, these services likely encompassed a range of activities such as public affairs support, content creation (e.g., videos, graphics, web content), internal communications, event support, and media relations. For NASA, such services are crucial for communicating its scientific discoveries, technological advancements, and human spaceflight endeavors to the public, policymakers, and internal stakeholders. Effective media support helps in building public trust, fostering interest in STEM fields, and disseminating critical information related to agency activities. The $23.3 million total value suggests a significant and ongoing need for these media-related functions over the contract's lifespan.
How did the 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources' procurement method impact the bidding landscape and potential cost savings for NASA?
The 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources' method is a nuanced approach. It signifies that the competition was open to all responsible sources, but specific sources were excluded based on criteria defined in the solicitation. This exclusion could be due to requirements for specific past performance, unique technical capabilities, or other factors deemed critical by NASA. While it aims to ensure that only highly qualified vendors participate, it inherently narrows the competitive pool compared to a pure 'full and open' competition. The impact on cost savings is therefore complex: a smaller pool might lead to less aggressive bidding, but if the excluded sources were significantly less capable or more expensive, the chosen bidders might offer better overall value. Without knowing who was excluded and why, it's difficult to definitively state the cost impact, but it suggests NASA prioritized specific vendor qualifications over maximum bidder numbers.
Can the value of this contract be benchmarked against similar federal contracts for administrative, media, and professional services?
Benchmarking this $23.3 million contract requires comparing it to similar IDIQ (Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity) or task-order-based contracts awarded by federal agencies for administrative, media, and professional services, particularly within the aerospace or science sectors. Key comparison points would include the contract's duration (nearly six years), the mix of services (administrative, media, professional), and the specific NAICS code (541611). For instance, contracts supporting public affairs, internal communications, and general management consulting for agencies like the Department of Defense or other science-focused entities could serve as benchmarks. The average annual spending of approximately $4 million ($23.3M / ~5.7 years) provides a baseline. However, precise benchmarking is challenging without access to detailed service descriptions, labor rates, and performance metrics of comparable contracts.
What were the primary risks associated with the GENTECH Partners LAMPS contract, and how might they have been mitigated?
Primary risks associated with the LAMPS contract likely included performance risk (contractor failing to deliver services meeting NASA's quality standards), cost risk (especially concerning the minimal Cost Reimbursable portion), schedule risk (delays in task order completion), and scope creep. Performance risk could be mitigated through clear performance work statements (PWS) in task orders, robust quality assurance surveillance plans (QASP), and regular performance reviews. Cost risk related to the CR component would be managed by strict oversight, defined ceilings, and justification requirements. Schedule risk could be addressed by setting realistic deadlines in task orders and monitoring progress closely. Scope creep would be managed through a formal change control process, ensuring any additions or modifications were properly vetted, priced, and approved.
How has NASA's spending on administrative, media, and professional services evolved since the completion of the LAMPS contract in 2018?
Analyzing NASA's spending trends on administrative, media, and professional services since the LAMPS contract concluded in May 2018 would reveal shifts in procurement strategies and service needs. Post-2018, NASA may have consolidated requirements into larger contracts, utilized different contract vehicles, or shifted focus towards specific types of services (e.g., digital media, advanced analytics). Examining subsequent contracts under similar NAICS codes or for comparable services would indicate whether spending has increased or decreased, and if the nature of the services has changed. Factors like budget allocations, agency priorities (e.g., Artemis program), and technological advancements would influence these trends. A detailed analysis would require reviewing NASA's procurement data from 2018 onwards.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: ALTERNATIVE SOURCES
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Mantech International Corporation (UEI: 053518312)
Address: 2 EATON STREET SUITE 603, HAMPTON, VA, 23669
Business Categories: Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $23,328,409
Exercised Options: $23,328,409
Current Obligation: $23,328,409
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 5
Total Subaward Amount: $11,046,546
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNL12AA06B
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2012-09-01
Current End Date: 2018-05-31
Potential End Date: 2018-05-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2018-11-14
More Contracts from Gentech Partners Joint Venture
- Support Services — $27.1M (Department of Defense)
- Closely Associated", Langley Administrative, Media, and Professional Services (lamps) Contract.id/Iq Firm Fixed Price Task Orders W/Minimal Other Direct Cost (ODC) AS Cost Reimbursable NOT to Exceed. Approximately: 1/3 Administrative, 1/3 Media and 1/3 Professional Services Lamps to for Administrative Support Services — $23.6M (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 →