NASA awards $12.2M for Mississippi electric power distribution, completed on time
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $12,200,000 ($12.2M)
Contractor: Mississippi Power CO
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2008-03-13
End Date: 2010-03-15
Contract Duration: 732 days
Daily Burn Rate: $16.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Energy
Official Description: NORTH TRANSMISSION LINE BUILD
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $12.2 million to MISSISSIPPI POWER CO for work described as: NORTH TRANSMISSION LINE BUILD Key points: 1. Contract completed within the estimated duration, suggesting effective project management. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type likely provided cost certainty for the agency. 3. Full and open competition was utilized, indicating a broad market search. 4. The contract was awarded to a single entity, Mississippi Power Co. 5. The project was located in Mississippi, potentially benefiting the local economy. 6. The contract's value is relatively modest within the context of large infrastructure projects.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $12.2 million for electric power distribution appears reasonable for the scope of work, especially considering it was completed within the planned timeframe. Benchmarking against similar large-scale power infrastructure projects is difficult without more specific details on the scope of 'NORTH TRANSMISSION LINE BUILD'. However, the fixed-price nature of the award suggests a degree of cost control and predictability for NASA.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that NASA sought bids from all responsible sources. While the data indicates full and open competition, it does not specify the number of bids received. A robust competitive process generally leads to better pricing and innovation, though the specific outcomes for this contract are not detailed.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through a wide range of offers, potentially driving down costs.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is NASA, which received essential electric power distribution services for its operations. The services delivered involved the construction or upgrade of a transmission line, ensuring reliable power supply. The geographic impact is localized to Mississippi, where the transmission line was built. Workforce implications likely include construction jobs in Mississippi during the contract period.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to fully assess the quality of work beyond on-time completion.
Positive Signals
- Contract completed within the scheduled duration, indicating good project management.
- Firm fixed-price contract type generally offers cost predictability.
- Full and open competition suggests a thorough market solicitation process.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Energy and Utilities sector, specifically related to electric power infrastructure. The market for such services involves utility companies and specialized construction firms. While $12.2 million is a significant sum, it represents a segment of the broader electric power distribution market, which involves substantial investments in grid modernization and expansion.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses is likely limited to potential subcontracting opportunities, which are not detailed in the provided information. The primary award went to Mississippi Power Co., a larger entity.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve NASA's contracting officers and potentially its Inspector General's office. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of financial oversight by setting the total cost upfront. Transparency is generally facilitated by the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where such contract awards are reported.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities and Infrastructure
- Utility Services Contracts
- Electric Grid Modernization Projects
Risk Flags
- Lack of detailed performance metrics beyond completion date.
- Limited information on the specific technical scope of the 'build'.
Tags
energy, utilities, electric-power-distribution, nasa, mississippi, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, infrastructure, transmission-line, completed-on-time
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $12.2 million to MISSISSIPPI POWER CO. NORTH TRANSMISSION LINE BUILD
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is MISSISSIPPI POWER CO.
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 $12.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-03-13. End: 2010-03-15.
What was the specific scope of the 'NORTH TRANSMISSION LINE BUILD' project?
The provided data identifies the contract as 'NORTH TRANSMISSION LINE BUILD' and categorizes the service as 'Electric Power Distribution'. However, specific details regarding the exact nature of the build – whether it involved new construction, upgrades to existing infrastructure, capacity expansion, or specific voltage requirements – are not included. This lack of detail makes it challenging to fully assess the project's complexity and the appropriateness of the awarded value without further context from NASA's procurement documentation.
How did the $12.2 million award compare to other similar electric power distribution projects undertaken by NASA or other federal agencies during that period?
Benchmarking the $12.2 million award requires access to a broader dataset of comparable federal contracts for electric power distribution projects around 2008-2010. Without such comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this contract represented a high, low, or average cost for similar undertakings. Factors like geographic location, specific technical requirements, and the competitive landscape significantly influence pricing. The firm fixed-price nature suggests NASA aimed for cost certainty, but the value proposition relative to market rates for similar projects remains unclear without more granular data.
What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of this contract, beyond on-time completion?
The provided data primarily highlights that the contract was completed within its duration (732 days) and awarded under a firm fixed-price structure. Beyond on-time completion, specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to the quality of the transmission line build, adherence to technical specifications, operational reliability post-construction, or cost efficiency within the fixed price are not detailed. NASA's internal contract close-out procedures would likely have included assessments of technical performance, but this information is not publicly available in the summarized data.
What was the track record of Mississippi Power Co. with federal contracts, particularly with NASA, prior to or around the time of this award?
The provided data does not include information on Mississippi Power Co.'s prior federal contracting history or performance record. To assess their track record, one would need to consult databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for previous awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract modifications. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget performance on similar projects would indicate a lower risk associated with this award.
Were there any significant risks identified during the solicitation or performance phases of this contract, and how were they mitigated?
The summary data does not explicitly list identified risks for this contract. However, common risks in infrastructure projects like transmission line builds include technical challenges, environmental compliance issues, supply chain disruptions, labor availability, and unforeseen site conditions. Given the firm fixed-price structure and on-time completion, it suggests that either risks were minimal, well-managed by Mississippi Power Co., or that the contract price adequately accounted for potential contingencies. Further investigation into NASA's contract file or risk management documentation would be needed for a definitive answer.
How does NASA's spending on electric power distribution infrastructure compare to its spending in other major categories like research and development or space exploration?
Comparing NASA's spending on electric power distribution infrastructure to its core missions like R&D and space exploration requires analyzing NASA's overall budget and contract spending across various categories. Infrastructure projects, while essential for supporting agency operations, typically represent a smaller portion of the budget compared to the high-profile, mission-critical R&D and exploration programs. This $12.2 million contract is likely an operational or facilities support expenditure, distinct from the primary funding allocated to scientific discovery and space missions.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Utilities › Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution › Electric Power Distribution
Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › UTILITIES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Southern CO Services Inc (UEI: 006925341)
Address: 2992 W BEACH BLVD, GULFPORT, MS, 04
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $12,200,000
Exercised Options: $12,200,000
Current Obligation: $12,200,000
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: GS00P06BSD0474
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-03-13
Current End Date: 2010-03-15
Potential End Date: 2010-03-15 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2013-03-21
More Contracts from Mississippi Power CO
- TO Provide Electric Service to Ncbc Gulfport — $21.1M (Department of Defense)
- Stennis Space Center (SSC) Construction of Facilities (cof)energy Conservation Project in Accordance With the Investment Grade Audit (IGA) Date 8/27/2021 of the Mississippi Power Company (MPC) Utility Energy Services Contract (uesc) — $3.3M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Electricity Services for the U.S. Armed Forces Retirement Home - Gulfport, Mississippi Campus — $279.3K (Department of the Interior)
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 →