NASA's $25.3M laboratory services contract awarded to A2 RESEARCH, JV shows moderate competition and a fixed price structure

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,306,011 ($25.3M)

Contractor: A2 Research, JV

Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Start Date: 2010-05-01

End Date: 2015-04-30

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: LABORATORY SERVICE.

Place of Performance

Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $25.3 million to A2 RESEARCH, JV for work described as: LABORATORY SERVICE. Key points: 1. The contract utilized full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a deliberate but not entirely open bidding process. 2. A firm-fixed-price structure suggests a defined scope and risk allocation, potentially leading to cost certainty for the agency. 3. With 4 bidders, the competition level appears moderate, which could influence pricing compared to more intensely bid contracts. 4. The contract duration of 1825 days (5 years) provides a long-term service commitment for NASA's laboratory needs. 5. The award to A2 RESEARCH, JV, a joint venture, may reflect a strategy to leverage specialized capabilities. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this contract was not specifically targeted for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $25.3 million contract is challenging without specific service details and comparable contract data. However, the firm-fixed-price (FFP) award type suggests NASA aimed for cost certainty, which is generally a positive indicator for value. The moderate number of bidders (4) implies some level of competition, but it's unclear if this resulted in optimal pricing. Further analysis would require comparing the per-unit costs or service rates against industry benchmarks for similar laboratory services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This procurement method indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the solicitation. With four bidders participating, the competition level is moderate. This suggests that while multiple companies had the opportunity to bid, the pool of potential offerors might have been pre-qualified or limited in some way, potentially impacting the price discovery process compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The moderate competition level means taxpayers likely benefited from some price negotiation, but potentially not to the fullest extent possible if the exclusion of sources significantly limited the bidder pool.

Public Impact

This contract directly supports NASA's research and development activities by providing essential laboratory services. The services delivered are crucial for scientific testing and analysis required for space exploration and aeronautics. The primary beneficiaries are NASA scientists and engineers who rely on accurate and timely laboratory results. The contract's geographic impact is centered around NASA facilities, likely in Mississippi where the contractor is based. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for skilled laboratory technicians, scientists, and support staff at A2 RESEARCH, JV.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

• The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation to understand the rationale and potential impact on market access.
• Lack of specific details on the laboratory services provided makes it difficult to assess performance metrics and value for money comprehensively.
• The moderate number of bidders could indicate potential barriers to entry for other qualified firms in this specialized laboratory services market.

Positive Signals

• The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost predictability for NASA, mitigating the risk of cost overruns.
• The award to a joint venture (A2 RESEARCH, JV) may indicate a strategic approach to leveraging diverse expertise for complex laboratory needs.
• A 5-year contract duration suggests a stable, long-term relationship and commitment to the services provided.

Sector Analysis

The laboratory services sector is critical for scientific advancement across various industries, including aerospace. This contract falls under the 'Testing Laboratories and Services' NAICS code (541380). The market for specialized aerospace laboratory services is often characterized by high technical requirements and stringent quality standards. Spending in this area is driven by the need for precise testing, calibration, and analysis to ensure the safety and efficacy of complex systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other government contracts for similar laboratory support services, particularly within the defense and aerospace sectors.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have been awarded as a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'sb: false'. Furthermore, the 'ss' flag is also false, meaning there's no explicit indication of subcontracting goals for small businesses within this specific award. This suggests that the primary focus of the procurement was on technical capability and price, rather than specifically promoting small business participation. The impact on the small business ecosystem would therefore be indirect, potentially through competition with larger firms or through opportunities if A2 RESEARCH, JV chooses to subcontract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a definitive contract awarded by NASA, it is subject to NASA's internal procurement regulations and oversight mechanisms. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Accountability measures would include performance reviews, adherence to the firm-fixed-price terms, and potential audits. The Inspector General of NASA would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

• NASA Research and Development Contracts
• Aerospace Testing Services
• Scientific Laboratory Support
• Federal Government R&D Spending
• Definitive Contracts

Risk Flags

• Competition Type Ambiguity
• Lack of Specific Service Details
• Potential for Unforeseen Costs in FFP
• Limited Small Business Impact

Tags

nasa, laboratory-services, testing-laboratories-and-services, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, joint-venture, r&d, mississippi, a2-research-jv

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $25.3 million to A2 RESEARCH, JV. LABORATORY SERVICE.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is A2 RESEARCH, JV.

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 $25.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-05-01. End: 2015-04-30.

What specific types of laboratory services are covered under this NASA contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'LABORATORY SERVICE' under NAICS code 541380 (Testing Laboratories and Services). However, the specific nature of these services is not detailed. Typically, for NASA, this could encompass a wide range of activities such as materials testing, environmental testing (e.g., thermal vacuum, vibration), chemical analysis, calibration services, failure analysis, and specialized testing for spacecraft components, propulsion systems, or aeronautical designs. The exact scope would be defined in the contract's statement of work, which is not available in the provided summary data.

How does the moderate competition (4 bidders) for this contract compare to typical competition levels for similar NASA laboratory services?

A moderate competition level of four bidders for a specialized service like NASA laboratory support can be considered typical, though it varies significantly by contract size and technical complexity. Highly specialized or niche services might see fewer bidders due to limited qualified sources. Conversely, broader or less technically demanding services might attract more. Without specific benchmarks for NASA's laboratory service procurements of similar value and scope, it's difficult to definitively state if four bidders represent high or low competition. However, it suggests that the market is not overly saturated but also not a sole-source situation, allowing for some price negotiation.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for laboratory services?

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract for laboratory services lies in the potential for scope creep or unforeseen technical challenges. If the Statement of Work (SOW) is not meticulously defined, the contractor may face difficulties in accurately estimating costs, leading to potential disputes or requests for contract modifications. Conversely, if the SOW is too restrictive and unforeseen issues arise, the contractor might incur losses, potentially impacting service quality or leading to contractor default. For NASA, the risk is ensuring the SOW is comprehensive enough to cover all necessary testing while allowing for flexibility if unexpected scientific or engineering problems emerge during the contract period.

What is the significance of A2 RESEARCH, JV being a joint venture for this contract?

A2 RESEARCH, JV being a joint venture (JV) suggests a strategic collaboration between two or more entities to pool resources, expertise, and capabilities to meet NASA's specific requirements. JVs are often formed to tackle complex projects that might be beyond the capacity or scope of a single company, or to combine complementary skills. For NASA, awarding to a JV can provide access to a broader range of specialized technical skills, potentially enhancing innovation and problem-solving. It can also be a mechanism for companies to gain experience and build a track record, particularly if one of the JV partners is a smaller entity seeking to expand its federal contracting footprint.

How has NASA's spending on laboratory services evolved over time, and does this contract fit into a historical pattern?

Historical spending data for NASA's laboratory services would reveal trends in investment in scientific infrastructure and support. This $25.3 million contract, awarded in 2010 for a 5-year term, represents a significant but likely typical investment for long-term laboratory support. Analyzing NASA's overall R&D budget and specific allocations to testing and laboratory services over the past decade would provide context. If NASA's mission priorities have shifted towards more complex research or new technological frontiers, spending on advanced laboratory services might increase. This contract appears to fit within a pattern of NASA securing long-term, fixed-price support for its essential scientific operations.

What does 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' mean for taxpayer value?

This procurement method, 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential bidders were excluded before the solicitation was released. The rationale for exclusion could be based on pre-qualification criteria, specific technical requirements, or other factors defined by the agency. For taxpayers, this method offers a mixed value proposition. On one hand, having multiple bidders (in this case, 4) still introduces competition, which generally drives down prices and encourages efficiency. On the other hand, the exclusion of sources means that the government may not have received bids from all potentially capable and competitive firms, potentially leading to a less optimal price than could have been achieved in a completely unrestricted competition. The value depends heavily on the justification and fairness of the source exclusion criteria.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Testing Laboratories and Services

Product/Service Code: QUALITY CONTROL, TEST, INSPECTION › OTHER QUALITY, TEST, INSPECT SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: NNS09ZDA006R

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Alcyon, Inc. (UEI: 606852163)

Address: 1021 OLD MONROVIA RD, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35806

Business Categories: Category 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: $26,207,591

Exercised Options: $26,207,591

Current Obligation: $25,306,011

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2010-05-01

Current End Date: 2015-04-30

Potential End Date: 2015-04-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2018-09-24

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 →

Explore Related Government Spending