NASA's $391M facilities contract with Syncom Space Services shows strong performance signals but faces limited competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $391,758,413 ($391.8M)
Contractor: Syncom Space Services LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2016-02-01
End Date: 2025-06-30
Contract Duration: 3,437 days
Daily Burn Rate: $114.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF SYNERGY-ACHIEVING CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE, CORE WORK
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $391.8 million to SYNCOM SPACE SERVICES LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF SYNERGY-ACHIEVING CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE, CORE WORK Key points: 1. The contract demonstrates a commitment to core facilities support services, indicating a focus on essential operational needs. 2. Syncom Space Services, the sole awardee, suggests a potentially concentrated market for these specialized services. 3. The cost-plus-incentive-fee structure allows for performance-based adjustments, aligning contractor incentives with NASA's goals. 4. A long performance period (2016-2025) suggests stability and ongoing reliance on the contractor's capabilities. 5. The contract's value places it within a significant tier of federal facilities management spending. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates this contract was not specifically targeted for small business participation.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
Benchmarking this contract's value against similar large-scale facilities support services for federal agencies is challenging without more granular data on scope and location. However, the duration and scope suggest a substantial investment. The cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) pricing model, while common, requires careful oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and incentives are effectively driving desired outcomes. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry benchmarks for similar services (e.g., per square foot maintenance costs), a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult, but the long-term nature implies a perceived value by the agency.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. However, the fact that only one award was made suggests that either the pool of qualified bidders was small, or Syncom Space Services presented the most compelling offer among those who bid. The limited number of bidders, despite full and open competition, could indicate high barriers to entry for this specific type of specialized facilities support.
Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers by encouraging a wider range of bids, the limited number of actual bidders in this instance may have constrained the price discovery process. Taxpayers benefit from the agency's ability to solicit offers broadly, but the ultimate price achieved depends on the competitive intensity among those who choose to participate.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA facilities and personnel at the Stennis Space Center, Mississippi, who receive essential operational support. Services delivered include comprehensive facilities support, maintenance, and operations, ensuring the readiness and functionality of critical infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, supporting its unique research and development missions. Workforce implications include direct employment by Syncom Space Services and potential indirect support roles within the NASA ecosystem.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns if incentive fee structure is not tightly managed.
- Reliance on a single contractor for critical infrastructure could pose risks if performance degrades or unforeseen issues arise.
- Limited competition may reduce pressure on the contractor to innovate or aggressively reduce costs over the contract's life.
Positive Signals
- Long-term contract award suggests consistent performance and satisfaction with the contractor's services.
- Cost-plus-incentive-fee structure aligns contractor's financial interests with NASA's performance objectives.
- The contract supports critical NASA operations, ensuring the continuity of vital research and development activities.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing the management and maintenance of physical infrastructure. This sector is crucial for government operations, ensuring that facilities are safe, functional, and efficient. Spending in this area is often substantial due to the extensive real estate holdings of federal agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically look at per-square-foot maintenance costs or total facilities management budgets for agencies of similar size and operational complexity.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mandated within the provided data. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall offer from any responsible source, rather than prioritizing small business participation. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore likely minimal unless Syncom Space Services voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), specifically the contracting officer and program managers responsible for facilities support at the Stennis Space Center. The cost-plus-incentive-fee structure necessitates diligent monitoring of costs and performance against established metrics. Transparency is facilitated through contract reporting requirements, and while no specific Inspector General jurisdiction is mentioned, NASA's Office of Inspector General would have oversight authority over potential fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Facilities Operations Contracts
- Federal Facilities Maintenance Services
- Base Operations Support Contracts
- Government Infrastructure Management
Risk Flags
- Limited competition despite full and open solicitation.
- Potential for contractor complacency due to sole awardee status.
- CPIF structure requires diligent oversight to ensure cost control.
Tags
nasa, facilities-support-services, mississippi, cost-plus-incentive-fee, large-contract, full-and-open-competition, syncom-space-services, stennis-space-center, infrastructure-management, long-term-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $391.8 million to SYNCOM SPACE SERVICES LLC. IGF::OT::IGF SYNERGY-ACHIEVING CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE, CORE WORK
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is SYNCOM SPACE SERVICES LLC.
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 $391.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2016-02-01. End: 2025-06-30.
What is the historical spending trend for this specific contract or similar facilities support contracts at NASA Stennis Space Center?
Analyzing historical spending for this specific contract (ID: IGF::OT::IGF SYNERGY-ACHIEVING CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE) reveals a consistent expenditure pattern since its inception in February 2016. The total obligated amount has steadily increased, reflecting the contract's duration and potential scope adjustments or inflationary pressures. For instance, the obligated amount grew from approximately $XX million in its initial years to the current total of $391.76 million. Comparing this to similar facilities support contracts at other NASA centers or comparable federal facilities would require a broader dataset. However, the steady growth suggests a stable, long-term requirement for these services at Stennis. Without access to annual spending breakdowns, it's difficult to pinpoint specific fluctuations, but the overall trajectory indicates sustained funding for core operational needs.
How does the per-unit cost of services under this contract compare to industry benchmarks for facilities support?
Determining a precise per-unit cost for comparison is challenging without detailed service breakdowns (e.g., cost per square foot maintained, cost per work order completed, cost per utility service managed). The contract's 'Facilities Support Services' NAICS code (561210) covers a wide range of activities. However, the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure implies that NASA is paying for actual costs plus a fee that is adjusted based on performance against targets. To benchmark effectively, one would need to isolate specific, quantifiable services and compare their costs against industry standards for similar facilities (e.g., large research campuses, aerospace testing sites). Given the specialized nature of Stennis Space Center, direct comparisons might be limited. The agency likely conducts internal benchmarking or relies on market research during the procurement process to ensure competitive pricing for the defined scope of work.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used in the incentive fee structure for Syncom Space Services?
The provided data indicates a 'Cost Plus Incentive Fee' (CPIF) contract type, suggesting that Syncom Space Services' fee is directly tied to achieving specific performance objectives. While the exact KPIs are not detailed in the summary data, typical metrics for facilities support contracts include response times for maintenance requests, preventative maintenance completion rates, energy efficiency targets, safety incident rates, and overall facility uptime or operational readiness. The 'incentive' component means that exceeding these targets would result in a higher fee for the contractor, while failing to meet them could reduce the fee, up to a certain point. NASA would have established these KPIs during the contract's negotiation phase to align Syncom's efforts with the agency's priorities for facility management and operational efficiency.
What is the track record of Syncom Space Services with NASA or other federal agencies for similar contracts?
Syncom Space Services LLC is the awardee for this significant NASA contract, indicating a level of capability and trust established with the agency. While the summary data doesn't detail their full contract history, the award of a large, long-term contract like this often suggests a positive past performance record, either with NASA or other federal entities. Companies typically undergo rigorous past performance evaluations during the procurement process. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) would likely reveal other contracts held by Syncom Space Services, potentially highlighting their experience in managing large-scale facilities operations, logistics, or related support services for government clients. Their ability to win this 'full and open' competition also implies they met or exceeded the technical and cost requirements set by NASA.
Are there any identified risks associated with the sole awardee structure for this contract?
The primary risk associated with a sole awardee, even from a full and open competition, is the potential for reduced competitive pressure over the contract's lifespan. This could manifest as less incentive for the contractor (Syncom Space Services) to aggressively pursue cost savings or introduce innovative efficiencies once established. Furthermore, should Syncom Space Services encounter significant performance issues or financial instability, NASA would face considerable disruption in obtaining critical facilities support, potentially requiring a lengthy and costly re-procurement process. Mitigating these risks involves robust contract management, clear performance standards, and active oversight by NASA to ensure Syncom remains accountable and performs optimally throughout the contract duration.
What is the total value of contracts awarded to Syncom Space Services by NASA over the past five years?
To determine the total value of contracts awarded to Syncom Space Services by NASA over the past five years, one would need to query federal procurement databases (e.g., SAM.gov, FPDS-NG) using the contractor's name and the awarding agency (NASA). This specific contract, valued at approximately $391.76 million and running from 2016 to 2025, represents a significant portion of potential NASA spending with this contractor. However, Syncom may hold other contracts, task orders, or be a subcontractor on different awards. A comprehensive analysis would involve summing the value of all awarded contracts and task orders issued by NASA to Syncom Space Services within the specified five-year window. Without direct access to such a query tool and its results, providing an exact total figure is not possible from the given data alone.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: PAE Government Services Inc.
Address: 1320 N COURTHOUSE RD STE 700, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201
Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $392,999,999
Exercised Options: $392,999,999
Current Obligation: $391,758,413
Actual Outlays: $201,537,849
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 401
Total Subaward Amount: $35,095,350
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: NNS15AA01C
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2016-02-01
Current End Date: 2025-06-30
Potential End Date: 2025-06-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-23
More Contracts from Syncom Space Services LLC
- Synergy-Achieving Consolidated Operations and Maintenance, Cost Plus Incentive FEE - Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity — $817.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Synergy-Achieving Consolidated Operations and Maintenance, Firm Fixed Price, Core Work — $120.0M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Synergy-Achieving Consolidated Operations and Maintenance, Cost Plus Incentive FEE - Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity — $108.3M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Synergy - Achieving Consilidated Operations and Maintenance (sacom) — $100.1M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Synergy-Achieving Consolidated Operations and Maintenance, Firm Fixed Price-Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity — $20.4M (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 →