NASA's John C. Stennis Space Center awarded $680M for facility operations over 9 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $679,861,533 ($679.9M)
Contractor: Amentum Technology, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2007-07-17
End Date: 2016-07-31
Contract Duration: 3,302 days
Daily Burn Rate: $205.9K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: FACILITY OPERATING SERVICES AT THE JOHN C. STENNIS SPACE CENTER, INCLUDING BUILDING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE, MEDICAL CLINIC, CAFETERIA, ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROCUREMENT SERVICES, GRAPHICS SERVICES, ET AL.
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $679.9 million to AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, INC. for work described as: FACILITY OPERATING SERVICES AT THE JOHN C. STENNIS SPACE CENTER, INCLUDING BUILDING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE, MEDICAL CLINIC, CAFETERIA, ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROCUREMENT SERVICES, GRAPHICS SERVICES, ET AL. Key points: 1. The contract covered a broad range of facility support services, indicating a comprehensive outsourcing strategy by NASA. 2. Amentum Technology, Inc. was the sole awardee, suggesting a significant role in managing critical infrastructure. 3. The contract utilized a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure, which aims to align contractor performance with government objectives through shared savings or cost overruns. 4. The duration of the contract (over 9 years) points to a long-term need for these services at the Stennis Space Center. 5. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, implying a robust bidding process. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 categorizes this as Facilities Support Services, a common area for large federal contracts.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without detailed performance metrics and specific service breakdowns. The total award amount of $680 million over approximately nine years averages to about $75.5 million annually. This figure needs to be compared against similar large-scale facility operations contracts at other federal installations to assess if it represents good value. The CPIF payment structure suggests an attempt to control costs, but the ultimate value depends on the incentive targets and actual performance.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. The fact that Amentum Technology, Inc. was the sole awardee after this competitive process suggests they offered the best value proposition to NASA for these extensive facility support services. The number of bidders (6) is a healthy indicator of market interest and potential for price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to more favorable pricing and innovative solutions, ensuring federal dollars are used efficiently.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA and the personnel operating at the John C. Stennis Space Center, who receive essential support services. Services include building and grounds maintenance, medical clinic operations, cafeteria services, engineering, and procurement, ensuring the smooth functioning of the facility. The geographic impact is concentrated at the John C. Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, a key NASA facility for rocket propulsion testing and research. The contract likely supports a significant workforce, both directly employed by Amentum Technology, Inc. and indirectly through its supply chain.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long-term nature of the contract could lead to contractor complacency if not actively managed.
- CPIF contracts require careful monitoring to ensure incentive goals are met and do not inadvertently drive undesired behaviors.
- Reliance on a single contractor for such a broad scope of critical services presents a concentration of risk.
Positive Signals
- Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process, likely resulting in a qualified and capable contractor.
- The CPIF payment structure incentivizes cost efficiency and performance, potentially leading to better outcomes for NASA.
- The long contract duration allows for stability and continuity of essential services at a major federal facility.
Sector Analysis
Facilities Support Services is a significant segment within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. Federal agencies frequently contract out these services to specialized companies to manage complex infrastructure, allowing them to focus on their core missions. The total federal spending on facilities support is substantial, with contracts often awarded for extended periods to ensure operational continuity. This contract represents a major investment in maintaining a critical research and development installation.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). While the prime contractor is Amentum Technology, Inc., a large business, there may be subcontracting opportunities for small businesses within the scope of work. The extent to which small businesses participate will depend on Amentum's subcontracting plan and NASA's oversight of that plan.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under NASA's contracting officers and program managers at the John C. Stennis Space Center. The CPIF structure implies performance metrics and reporting requirements that facilitate oversight. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Depending on the nature of the services and potential issues, the NASA Office of Inspector General could also exercise jurisdiction.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities Maintenance Contracts
- Federal Base Operations Support
- Government-wide Facilities Management Services
- Aerospace Research and Development Support
Risk Flags
- Long-term contract duration
- Single awardee for comprehensive services
- Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure requires careful monitoring
Tags
facilities-support-services, nasa, john-c-stennis-space-center, mississippi, definitive-contract, cost-plus-incentive-fee, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, professional-scientific-and-technical-services, aerospace
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $679.9 million to AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, INC.. FACILITY OPERATING SERVICES AT THE JOHN C. STENNIS SPACE CENTER, INCLUDING BUILDING AND GROUNDS MAINTENANCE, MEDICAL CLINIC, CAFETERIA, ENGINEERING SERVICES, PROCUREMENT SERVICES, GRAPHICS SERVICES, ET AL.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, 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 $679.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-07-17. End: 2016-07-31.
What was Amentum Technology, Inc.'s performance history prior to or during this contract?
Assessing Amentum Technology, Inc.'s performance history requires accessing contract performance reports (CPARs) and any past performance evaluations associated with this specific contract or similar contracts they have held with NASA or other federal agencies. Without direct access to these detailed records, it's difficult to provide a specific assessment. Generally, CPARS evaluate contractors on factors like technical performance, cost control, schedule adherence, and management. A review of these would indicate if Amentum consistently met or exceeded expectations, or if there were significant issues. For a contract of this magnitude and duration, a history of successful performance on comparable contracts would be a strong positive indicator, while a history of deficiencies would raise concerns about value and risk.
How does the annual cost of this contract compare to similar facility operations contracts at other NASA centers or comparable federal facilities?
To benchmark the value, we would need to compare the approximate annual cost of $75.5 million ($680M / 9 years) against similar contracts. For instance, contracts for operating large research centers or space launch facilities managed by other agencies (like the Department of Defense or Department of Energy) or even other NASA centers could serve as comparators. Key factors for comparison include the scope of services (e.g., R&D support, general administration, specialized technical services), facility size and complexity, geographic location (which impacts labor costs), and contract type. If comparable facilities with similar service requirements are operated at a significantly lower annual cost, it would suggest this contract may not represent optimal value for money. Conversely, if costs are in line or lower, it indicates competitive pricing.
What were the specific incentive targets and outcomes under the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure?
The CPIF structure means that the final cost to the government was influenced by the contractor's performance against pre-defined targets, often related to cost savings, schedule adherence, or quality metrics. To fully assess the value and risk, understanding these specific targets is crucial. For example, if the incentive was heavily weighted towards cost reduction, and Amentum achieved significant savings, it would indicate good value. Conversely, if targets were easily met or poorly defined, the incentive may have had little impact on actual performance or cost. Without the details of the incentive plan and the achieved outcomes, it's impossible to definitively say how effectively the CPIF structure contributed to value for money or risk mitigation in this specific instance.
What is the historical spending trend for facility operations at the John C. Stennis Space Center?
Analyzing historical spending trends for facility operations at the John C. Stennis Space Center prior to and following this contract award would provide context. If spending has been consistently high or increasing over time for similar services, this $680 million award might represent a continuation of established investment levels. However, if previous spending was significantly lower, this award could indicate an expansion of services, increased costs, or a shift in contracting strategy. Understanding these trends helps determine if the current contract's value is consistent with past investments or represents a notable change in resource allocation for facility management at the center.
What are the potential risks associated with consolidating a wide range of facility services under a single contractor?
Consolidating diverse facility services like maintenance, medical, cafeteria, and engineering under one contractor, Amentum Technology, Inc., presents several potential risks. Firstly, it creates a single point of failure; if the contractor underperforms or faces financial difficulties, multiple critical operations could be disrupted simultaneously. Secondly, managing such a broad scope requires significant expertise across various domains, and a contractor might excel in some areas while struggling in others, potentially leading to suboptimal service delivery in weaker areas. Thirdly, the large contract value and scope can increase the contractor's leverage, potentially making it harder for NASA to renegotiate terms or switch providers if issues arise. Finally, oversight becomes more complex, requiring NASA to monitor a wider array of performance metrics and service levels.
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
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNS06ZBA004R
Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
Address: 600 WILLIAM NORTHERN BLVD, TULLAHOMA, TN, 37388
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $724,376,628
Exercised Options: $704,328,057
Current Obligation: $679,861,533
Actual Outlays: $564,164
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-07-17
Current End Date: 2016-07-31
Potential End Date: 2016-07-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2024-09-06
More Contracts from Amentum Technology, Inc.
- THE Test and Operations Support Contract (tosc) IS a Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contract With an Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity Task Ordering Provision. Tosc Provides a Processing Contract for the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Supporting Multiple Customers. the Scope of This Contract Includes Program Management and Control; Safety and Mission Assurance; Information Management; Processing Support Systems and Integration; Flight Hardware Processing; Ground Systems Operations, Maintenance and Sustaining Engineering; Logistics and Spaceport Services. Tosc Provides Overall Management and Implementation of Ground Systems Capabilities, Flight Hardware Processing and Launch Operations AT KSC in Florida. These Tasks Will Support the International Space Station, Ground Systems Development and Operations, and the Space Launch System, Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Launch Services Programs. Tosc Also Provides Ground Processing for Launch Vehicles, Spacecraft and Payloads in Support of Emerging Programs, Commercial Entities and Other Government Agencies AS Designated by the Government. Services Include Advanced Planning and Special Studies; Development of Designated Ground Systems; Operational Support for Design and Development of Flight Hardware and Ground Systems; Spacecraft, Payload, and Launch Vehicle Servicing and Processing; Ground Systems Services; and Logistics and Other Processing Support Services. Flight Hardware Processing and Servicing Activities Include Assembly, Integration, Checkout, and Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair. Launch Vehicle and Spacecraft Operations Include Advanced Planning, Element Processing, Integration, Test, Launch and Recovery Services. Ground Systems Services Include Operations, Maintenance and Validation of Associated Ground Systems and Support Equipment Necessary for Human Space Flight and Exploration. Contract Activities Will BE Performed in the Most Cost-Effective and Efficient Manner Supporting the Government S Priorities for Safety, Mission Success, Customer Satisfaction and Innovation While Maintaining Flexibility and Responsiveness to Changing Requirements. With the Award of This Contract, KSC IS Positioning Itself for the Next ERA of Space Exploration. KSC IS Transitioning to a 21st-Century Launch Facility With Multiple Users, Both Private and Government. a Dynamic Infrastructure IS Taking Shape, Designed to Host Many Kinds of Spacecraft and Rockets Sending People on America's Next Voyages in Space — $2.1B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Engineering Science Contract — $1.9B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Engineering Services and Science Capability Augmentation (essca) — $1.9B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Enterprise Core Services (enduring) — $979.2M (Department of Defense)
- Engineering Science and Technology — $874.0M (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 →