FY 2011 Service Contract Inventory Analysis

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

FY 2011 Service Contract Inventory Analysis

November 2012

Office of Procurement

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546

Background

NASA is the United States agency that is responsible for the nation’s civilian space program, as well as aeronautics and aerospace research. Its mission is to drive advances in science, technology, aeronautics, and exploration to enhance knowledge, education, innovation, economic vitality, and stewardship of Earth.

Since its inception, NASA has accomplished its mission through the combined efforts of civil service employees and a far larger body of scientific, technical, and support personnel sustained through contracts, grants, and other agreements with industry and academia. One of NASA’s overarching strategies to strengthen the Agency and support U.S. competitiveness on a global scale is to invest in next-generation technologies and approaches to spur innovation. This would not be possible without NASA’s historically close ties with the private and academic sectors, and today NASA continues to contract with the private sector for most of the products and services it uses.

Approximately 13.5 percent of the Agency’s authorized funding is expended on full time, permanent civil service salaries and benefits. The remainder is dispersed widely in the national economy through NASA contracts, grants, and other agreements. Through these expenditures NASA acquires a variety of scientific, technical, and support services for the civilian aeronautics and space programs to achieve its six strategic goals:

1. Extend and sustain human activities across the solar system.
2. Expand scientific understanding of the Earth and the universe in which we live.
3. Create the innovative new space technologies for our exploration, science, and economic future.
4. Advance aeronautics research for societal benefit.
5. Enable program and institutional capabilities to conduct NASA’s aeronautics and space activities.
6. Share NASA with the public, educators, and students to provide opportunities to participate in our Mission, foster innovation, and contribute to a strong national economy.

NASA conducts its work in six principal organizations:

• Human Exploration and Operations: develops the systems and capabilities required for human exploration of space beyond low Earth orbit and for U.S. crew vehicle access to the International Space Station; sustains and operates the International Space Station; develops and implements future space launch complex upgrades; manages rocket testing capabilities; maintains secure and dependable communications to ground stations between platforms across the solar system; and provides the necessary training and supports health and safety of the nation’s astronauts.
• Science: conducts scientific exploration enabled by the use of space observatories and space probes that view the Earth from space, observe and visit other bodies in the solar system and gaze into the galaxy and beyond.
• Aeronautics: expands the boundaries of aeronautical knowledge for the benefit of the Nation through partnerships with academia, industry, and other government agencies, helping to foster a collaborative research environment in which ideas and knowledge are exchanged across multiple communities; ensures the future competitiveness of the nation’s aviation industry.
• Space Technology: develops and demonstrates advanced space systems concepts and technologies enabling new approaches to achieving NASA’s current mission set and future missions not feasible today.
• Education: strengthens NASA and the nation’s future workforce; attracts and retains students in science, technology, engineering and mathematics disciplines; engages Americans in NASA’s mission.
• Mission Support: provides critical mission support capabilities necessary to maintain the operation and administration of the Agency that cannot be directly aligned to specific program or project requirements; sustains institutional capabilities for supporting NASA’s mission portfolio by leveraging resources to meet mission needs, establishing Agency-wide capabilities, and providing institutional checks and balances;

In the next 20 years, while continuing its science and aeronautics research, NASA will be laying the groundwork for sending humans not only beyond Earth’s orbit, but farther into space than humans have ever been before. Given this dynamic and ambitious mission, NASA carefully balances the utilization of civil service expertise and resources with the external capabilities available through acquisitions that are often unique and complex. To meet its high risk mission, NASA requires the use of flexible contract vehicles to facilitate critical research, leading edge innovation, and development of complex hardware.

Introduction

Section 743 of Division C of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, P.L. 111-117, requires civilian agencies to prepare an annual inventory of their service contracts. NASA submitted and published its FY 2011 Service Contract Inventory (SCI) as required and in accordance with OMB issued guidance dated December 9, 2011. In addition agencies are to:

• perform an analysis of the data in their inventories for the purpose of determining if contract labor is being used in an appropriate and effective manner and,
• determine if the mix of federal employees and contractors in the agency is effectively balanced.

In the FY 2010 analysis NASA selected six special functions to analyze as part of the FY2010 Service Contract Inventory. The functions selected were PSC R425 Engineering and Technical Services, R408 Program Management/Support Services, D302 ADP Systems Development Services, D307 Automated Information System Services, D310 ADP Backup and Security Services, and D314 ADP System Acquisition Support Services. (Two of the PSCs for analysis were selected from the OMB Special Interest Functions for FY 2010 where the agency obligated the most funds.)

Per OMB guidance for the FY 2011 inventory, each agency was asked to identify the PSCs they planned to conduct further analysis. When choosing these functions, agencies were asked to not identify functions that were previously the subject of a focused analysis unless additional analysis of those functions was necessary. Each agency was encouraged to reflect on insight gained and lessons learned from its multi-sector workforce pilots, analysis of the FY 2010 inventory, the initiative to reduce spending on management support service contracts, and agency analysis of its FAIR Act inventory to help guide its decision. NASA senior management recommended the PSCs that the team should evaluate for the 2011 assessment.

On December 30, 2011 NASA submitted to OFPP its planned analysis identifying PSCs AD24 R&D- Defense Other: Services (Engineering Development) and B537 Special Studies/Analysis- Medical/Health as its special interest functions to be evaluated for its FY 2011 inventory. OMB completed its review of NASA’s request and the agency’s intent to examine these PSCs was publicly posted on January 30, 2012. The table below lists the dollars obligated for those PSCs in FY 2011, and a brief description of the rationale for selection are provided.

PSC / Product or Service Description / Dollars Obligated in FY 2011 / Rationale for Selection
AD24 / R&D- Defense Other: Services (Engineering Development) / $74,735,774 / NASA selected this PSC because it has the potential for personal services and for inherently governmental work to be performed by contractors.
B537 / Special Studies/Analysis- Medical/Health / $144,105,252 / NASA selected this PSC because it has the potential for personal services and for inherently governmental work to be performed by contractors.

The 2011 OMB guidance also requested a pilot comparison or “crosswalk” between the SCI and the Fair Act Inventory be attempted for the chosen PSCs. The SCI captures what functions are contracted out by an agency. The FAIR Act Inventory captures what is the composition of the internal civilian workforce. By comparing the results of the two initiatives an agency can review in a comprehensive manner how they accomplish particular agency functions and determine if their approach is most effective. To complete the requested SCI/FAIR Act crosswalk, NASA requested in its 2012 FAIR Act data call for centers to mark if either of the selected PSCs applied to the Federal Full Time Equivalents (FTE) listed. The Service Contract Inventory coding, which is based by industry, and FAIR Act coding, which is based on specific work functions, do not precisely correspond but there are instances where in-house functions perform similar work to a contracted function. For example, NASA hires engineers to perform engineering development functions. NASA also contracts with firms to perform engineering development functions. In this situation a center would identify those NASA internal engineers as being associated with PSC AD24. If marked as associated, the center was also to identify if the functions were “Closely Associated with Inherently Governmental Functions”, “Critical Functions”, or neither based on OMB Policy Letter 11-01 definitions summarized below.

"Functions closely associated with inherently governmental functions” are those supporting or providing advice or recommendations with regard to inherently governmental activities. Certain services and actions that generally are not considered to be inherently governmental functions may approach being in that category because of the nature of the function and the risk that performance may impinge on Federal officials’ performance of an inherently governmental function.

"Critical functions" are those necessary to the agency being able to effectively perform and maintain control of its mission and operations. Typically, critical functions are recurring and long-term in duration. The more important the function is to the Agency’s mission and operations, the more important it is that the agency has internal capability to maintain control of its mission and operations.

Analysis

NASA conducted its SCI analysis in accordance with section 743(e) to ensure that:

• Each contract in the inventory that is a personal services contract has been entered into, and is being performed, in accordance with applicable laws and regulations;
• The agency is giving special management attention, as set forth in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 37.114, to functions that are closely associated with inherently governmental functions;
• The agency is not using contractor employees to perform inherently governmental functions;
• The agency has specific safeguards and monitoring systems in place to ensure that work being performed by contractors has not changed or expanded during performance to become an inherently governmental function;
• The agency is not using contractor employees to perform critical functions in such a way that could affect the ability of the agency to maintain control of its mission and operations; and
• There are sufficient internal agency resources to manage and oversee contracts effectively.

A highly experienced, multifunctional team was assigned to carry out the analysis. The team members possessed broad knowledge of NASA operations as well as service contract procedures and requirements. A mixture of disciplines was vital to complete a meaningful analysis since OMB guidance requires an understanding of the functions being performed, how they relate to the agency’s core mission, and what constitutes effective contract management.

Methodology

The following methodology was carried out by a team of NASA procurement and subject matter experts to support its analysis of the above.

Step One: Determine the analysis sample. NASA selected PSCs AD24 R&D- Defense Other: Services (Engineering Development) and B537 Special Studies/Analysis- Medical/Health for analysis. There was special NASA management interest in contracts with Wyle Laboratories and Aerospace Corporation that fall within these PSC codes because of their involvement supporting decision making and performing critical operations. The samples selected covered a variety of the larger dollar actions while ensuring Aerospace Corporation and Wyle Laboratories contracts were included in the study.

Step Two: For the identified contracts, collect supporting documentation. This included:

- Conformed statements of work (SOW) for the basic contract as they exist today, including any supporting documentation or details

- Specific Task Orders (and their SOWs) based on dollar size and/or importance

- Contractor Financial Management Reports (NASA Form 533)

- Relevant contract modifications

- Annual obligation estimates

- Estimated annual staffing level

Step Three: Each team member individually perform a detailed review of the collected contract documentation.

Step Four: The team members meet to share their analyses and collectively discuss the contracts.

Step Five: Based on the initial analyses, conduct interviews and follow-on discussions with members of the acquisition team managing the selected contracts. This includes contracting officers (COs), contracting officer representatives (CORs), and requirements officials. The interview questions addressed:

- Estimates of annual obligations and staffing levels

- Completeness of contract requirements and methods for assigning work

- Contract funding mechanism(s)

- Contract change implementation processes

- Inherently governmental functions performed

- Functions closely related to inherently governmental functions, and oversight methods

- Critical functions performed

- COR certification, training

- Location of work performed, degree of monitoring by CO, and

- Method for inspecting and assessing performance

Step Six: Analyze FAIR Act Inventory data for the two PSC codes, collected in a separate process, to gain an understanding of NASA’s overall contractor to Federal employee mix for the two selected PSCs.

Step Seven: Perform a final data review and prepare the final report.

PSC B537, Special Studies/Analysis-Medical/Health - $144,105,252

The Special Studies/Analysis-Medical/Health PSC B537 function was selected for review because this PSC has above average potential for personal services and for inherently governmental work to be performed by the contractor.

A single contract accounted for 100% of the dollars obligated under this PSC.

Contractor / NASA Contracting Center / Contract # / Contract Title / Contract Amount FY2011
Wyle Laboratories Incorporated / Johnson Space Center (JSC) / NAS902078 / Bioastronautics Contract / $144,105,252

This is a long term contract which began on March 11, 2003 and is scheduled to expire April 30, 2013. Recompetition planning has begun. The contract is a large, labor intensive contract with $140M+ in annual expenditures and a labor force of approximately 900, consisting of both Wyle Laboratories’ employees and many subcontract partners. The contract consists of “base” or core work, work that is constant throughout the contract, representing 20% of the total effort, and task orders which represent the remaining 80% of the work. The contract supports three major functional areas at JSC: the Human Research Program (HRP), the International Space Station (ISS), and Crew Health and Safety. Task orders are issued as new requirements are identified within the scope of the contract. The basic contract statement of work and five representative task orders were reviewed. The contract administration team, consisting of the contracting officer, contracting team lead, and the contracting officer representative, was interviewed to better understand how key SOW language was interpreted and implemented, how changes were implemented, and how contract performance was monitored. The Space Life Sciences Directorate Deputy, HRP Program Manager and ISS Program Deputy, representing the requiring organizations, were also interviewed. The contract SOWs, basic and task order, were well written with clearly defined duties, well defined deliverables, and clear acceptance criteria. The contract did not include any personal services but there is an area of concern. In the SLSD organization five secretaries were listed as contractor employees. The wide range of duties a secretary may be required to perform and the close relationship they share with the office chief make personal services possible. Great care must be taken to ensure this situation does not occur. All new work requirements are passed through the COR to confirm they fall within the contract structure and there is no mission creep. The contracting officer ensures all new work requested falls within the contract scope before executing contract modifications. No inherently governmental duties were identified. There were several closely related to inherently governmental functions present. The closely related functions consist primarily of advisory support on report reviews and the establishment of requirements for other contracts. These tasks are infrequent and did not represent a large proportion of the contract duties. Many critical functions are performed under this contract. Examples being space flight medical operations, human research programs, development of crew health hardware, and flight crew integration. The contract also contained some non critical work such as the operation of the JSC Fitness program.

Contracting for functions that are closely related to inherently governmental functions is an allowed practice but requires higher levels of oversight than normal to ensure a clear demarcation between contractor and government responsibilities. On the Bioastronautics contract, the contract oversight in place is very robust and meets this standard. A certified, full time COR is assigned and proved very knowledgeable about the contract terms and his responsibilities. He was formally appointed using NASA Form 1634 and is current in his refresher training. Assisting him are six technical managers who are aligned with the six main elements of the contract. They receive formal delegations of responsibility using NASA Form 1634. They also receive COR training. Reporting to the technical managers are technical monitors, one or more assigned per task. The majority of technical monitors have received some COR training and are subject matter experts for the specific work functions they are overseeing but currently there is no formal appointment of responsibility or structured training requirements. They are well positioned to perform this oversight being located close to the contractor’s work sites. They provide performance data to the technical managers quarterly who in turn notify the COR of the acceptability of contract performance. Since this is a cost-plus- award-fee contract, there is additional emphasis on determining the quality of the performance received to determine appropriate award fee payments beyond a simple determination that the work was performed and met the minimum contract requirements.