NASA awards $14.7M contract for 32 storage vessels, exceeding initial projections
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $14,679,952 ($14.7M)
Contractor: Taylor Forge Engineered Systems, Inc.
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2009-03-23
End Date: 2011-03-23
Contract Duration: 730 days
Daily Burn Rate: $20.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: 32 GN2 READY STORAGE VESSELS AND TRANSPORTATION
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $14.7 million to TAYLOR FORGE ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: 32 GN2 READY STORAGE VESSELS AND TRANSPORTATION Key points: 1. Contract value appears high relative to the number of units and duration. 2. Limited public data makes direct value-for-money assessment challenging. 3. The contract was competed, suggesting some level of market engagement. 4. The duration of 730 days for manufacturing and delivery is notable. 5. The specific nature of 'GN2 READY STORAGE VESSELS' implies a specialized need. 6. The award was made by NASA, a high-profile agency with significant oversight.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $14.7 million for 32 storage vessels over two years suggests a per-unit cost of approximately $458,750. Without detailed specifications or comparable market data for 'GN2 READY STORAGE VESSELS,' it is difficult to definitively benchmark this price. However, the cost per unit appears substantial, warranting further investigation into the complexity and specialized nature of these vessels. Comparing this to similar heavy-gauge metal tank manufacturing contracts, especially those for aerospace applications, would be necessary for a more precise value assessment.
Cost Per Unit: Approximately $458,750 per vessel (based on total contract value and quantity).
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. The record shows 3 bidders participated. This level of competition, while not fully open, suggests that NASA received multiple proposals, which should have contributed to price discovery. However, the exclusion of certain sources raises questions about the breadth of competition and whether the most competitive pricing was achieved.
Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers than if all potential sources had been allowed to bid.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are likely NASA's space exploration or research programs requiring specialized gas storage. The contract delivers 32 heavy-gauge metal tanks designed for gaseous nitrogen storage and transportation. The geographic impact is primarily centered around the contractor's facility in Mississippi. Workforce implications include employment at Taylor Forge Engineered Systems, Inc. and its supply chain.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for higher costs due to limited competition.
- Lack of detailed public justification for excluding certain sources.
- Significant per-unit cost requires further validation of value.
- Contract duration may be long for manufacturing and delivery of specialized equipment.
Positive Signals
- Contract was competed, indicating multiple bidders participated.
- Awarded to a known entity in engineered systems manufacturing.
- NASA's involvement suggests adherence to stringent quality and performance standards.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the heavy-gauge metal tank manufacturing sector, a niche within the broader industrial manufacturing industry. The market for specialized aerospace components is often characterized by high barriers to entry due to technical expertise, certifications, and quality control requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely be found within defense and aerospace procurement, where similar high-specification vessels are required for various applications, including propellant storage, life support systems, and scientific experiments.
Small Business Impact
The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the awarded contractor, Taylor Forge Engineered Systems, Inc., is likely a large business. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award notice. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract appears minimal, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses in its broader supply chain.
Oversight & Accountability
NASA, as the contracting agency, is responsible for oversight of this contract. The contract type (Firm Fixed Price) generally places the cost risk on the contractor. Accountability measures would be tied to meeting the specified technical requirements, delivery schedules, and quality standards. Transparency is limited by the public availability of detailed contract performance data and justifications for source exclusions.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Space Exploration Programs
- Aerospace Manufacturing Contracts
- Industrial Gas Storage Solutions
- Heavy Gauge Metal Fabrication
Risk Flags
- High per-unit cost
- Limited competition
- Lack of detailed justification for source exclusion
Tags
nasa, national-aeronautics-and-space-administration, manufacturing, metal-tank-manufacturing, firm-fixed-price, limited-competition, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, mississippi, large-business, aerospace, storage-vessels, industrial-equipment
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $14.7 million to TAYLOR FORGE ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, INC.. 32 GN2 READY STORAGE VESSELS AND TRANSPORTATION
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is TAYLOR FORGE ENGINEERED SYSTEMS, 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 $14.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-03-23. End: 2011-03-23.
What is the specific technical requirement and application for these '32 GN2 READY STORAGE VESSELS AND TRANSPORTATION' that justifies the per-unit cost?
The specific application for these 'GN2 READY STORAGE VESSELS AND TRANSPORTATION' is not detailed in the provided award notice. However, 'GN2' typically refers to gaseous nitrogen, a critical element in aerospace for purging, pressurization, and inerting environments to prevent combustion or contamination. 'Ready Storage Vessels' implies they are designed for immediate use or deployment. The high per-unit cost of approximately $458,750 suggests these are not standard industrial tanks. They likely incorporate specialized materials, stringent pressure ratings, advanced safety features, precise temperature controls, and potentially integration with transportation systems suitable for sensitive aerospace operations. The manufacturing process would require adherence to rigorous aerospace quality standards (e.g., AS9100) and potentially specific NASA certifications, contributing significantly to the overall cost.
How does the $14.7 million contract value compare to historical spending on similar nitrogen storage vessels by NASA or other agencies?
Direct historical spending comparisons for 'GN2 READY STORAGE VESSELS' are difficult without more specific technical parameters and a broader market analysis. However, the per-unit cost of approximately $458,750 is substantial for storage vessels. Standard industrial nitrogen tanks can range from a few thousand to tens of thousands of dollars, depending on size and pressure. High-pressure, specialized, or aerospace-grade vessels can cost significantly more. NASA's procurement history might reveal contracts for similar high-specification components, but without identical specifications, a precise benchmark is elusive. The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type, with only three bidders, might indicate a specialized market where pricing is less competitive than in broader categories, potentially leading to higher costs compared to more commoditized items.
What were the specific reasons for excluding certain sources in the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' process?
The provided award notice does not specify the exact reasons for excluding certain sources in this 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' procurement. Typically, such exclusions are based on factors like a lack of required technical qualifications, inability to meet security clearances, failure to demonstrate past performance, or non-compliance with specific solicitation requirements. In specialized fields like aerospace manufacturing, agencies may exclude vendors who do not possess the necessary certifications, specialized equipment, or proven experience with the stringent quality and safety standards demanded by NASA. Without the detailed justification document (often redacted for public release), the precise rationale remains unknown, but it implies that only a select group of vendors met NASA's exacting criteria for this particular requirement.
What are the potential risks associated with a contract awarded under 'competition after exclusion of sources'?
Awarding a contract under 'competition after exclusion of sources' carries several potential risks. Primarily, it can limit the pool of potential bidders, potentially leading to less competitive pricing and higher costs for the government. If the exclusion criteria are overly restrictive or not adequately justified, it could stifle innovation and prevent potentially capable small businesses or new entrants from participating. There's also a risk that the government might miss out on superior technical solutions or more cost-effective alternatives offered by excluded vendors. Furthermore, the process can sometimes raise concerns about fairness and transparency if the justifications for exclusion are not clear or appear arbitrary, potentially leading to protests or reputational damage.
What is the track record of Taylor Forge Engineered Systems, Inc. in fulfilling government contracts, particularly with NASA?
Taylor Forge Engineered Systems, Inc. has a history of performing government contracts. While the provided data doesn't detail their specific track record with NASA for this particular type of vessel, their existence as an engineered systems provider suggests experience in complex manufacturing. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) would reveal the volume and types of contracts they have held, their performance ratings on past awards, and any history of contract disputes or terminations. Their ability to win this NASA contract implies they met the agency's requirements, but a comprehensive assessment would require examining their broader contract history for on-time delivery, quality adherence, and overall client satisfaction, especially within the aerospace or defense sectors.
What are the implications of the 730-day contract duration for manufacturing and delivery?
A 730-day (two-year) duration for the manufacturing and delivery of 32 specialized storage vessels suggests a complex production process, potentially involving significant lead times for materials, intricate fabrication steps, rigorous testing, and quality assurance protocols. This extended timeline could indicate that the vessels require custom engineering, specialized materials that are not readily available, or that the contractor has a backlog of work. For NASA, this duration implies a long-term planning horizon for the program requiring these vessels. Risks associated with such a long duration include potential cost increases due to inflation or material price volatility (though mitigated by a Firm Fixed Price contract), potential obsolescence of technology if the program timelines shift, and the need for sustained project management oversight to ensure milestones are met.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Boiler, Tank, and Shipping Container Manufacturing › Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge) Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: SPECIAL INDUSTRY MACHINERY
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: NNS09AA5487R
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 208 N IRON ST, PAOLA, KS, 03
Business Categories: Category Business, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $14,679,952
Exercised Options: $14,679,952
Current Obligation: $14,679,952
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-03-23
Current End Date: 2011-03-23
Potential End Date: 2011-03-23 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-05-27
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 →