IG-01-040

AUDIT

REPORT MULTIPLE-AWARD CONTRACTS

September 28, 2001

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Additional Copies

To obtain additional copies of this report, contact the Assistant Inspector General for Audits at

(202) 358-1232, or visit www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/issuedaudits.html.

Suggestions for Future Audits

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General for

Audits. Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

Code W

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

NASA Hotline

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement contact the NASA Hotline at (800) 424-9183,

(800) 535-8134 (TDD), or at www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/hotline.html#form; or write to the

NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L’Enfant Plaza Station, Washington, DC 20026. The

identity of each writer and caller can be kept confidential, upon request, to the extent permitted by

law.

Reader Survey

Please complete the reader survey at the end of this report or at

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html.

Acronyms

DOD Department of Defense

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FASA Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy
W September 28, 2001

TO: A/Administrator

FROM: W/Inspector General

SUBJECT: INFORMATION: Multiple-award Contracts

Assignment Number A-00-057-00

Report Number IG-01-040

The NASA Office of Inspector General has completed an audit of Multiple-award Contracts.1

We found that NASA’s use of multiple-award contracts complied with statutory requirements,

but at two of six NASA Centers reviewed some orders were awarded that were not in

accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements. Specifically, the Johnson

Space Center (Johnson) and Langley Research Center (Langley) contracting officers issued 51

(49 percent) of 104 sole-source orders without obtaining competition. Therefore, NASA had

not received the benefits of competitive bids and may have paid more for goods and services

than necessary.

Background

Multiple-award contracts allow NASA to procure services and supplies more quickly using

streamlined acquisition procedures while having the advantage of competition for obtaining

optimum prices. Multiple-award contracts are usually broad in scope and often have maximum

values of millions of dollars.

The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (FASA) authorizes agencies to enter into

multiple-award task and delivery order contracts for procuring services and supplies.2 FASA

establishes a general preference for using multiple-award contracts and requires that the

implementing FAR “establish a preference for awarding, to a maximum extent practicable,

multiple task or delivery order contracts for the same or similar services or property.” FAR

16.5, “Indefinite-Delivery Contracts,” incorporated the FASA guidelines.

 

1

 Multiple-award contracts occur when two or more contracts are awarded from one solicitation.

2

 FASA recognized that single-award contracts might be preferable in some cases.
2

Recommendations

We recommended that management review the propriety of multiple-award contract solesource orders during the procurement management surveys and establish a specific competition

goal for multiple-award contracts. We also recommended that the Johnson and Langley Center

Directors direct contracting officers to fairly consider all contractors who submit bids for orders

under multiple-award contracts. These recommendations will ensure that NASA is fairly

considering all contractors when awarding multiple-award contract orders and will minimize the

number of sole-source orders for multiple-award contracts.

Management’s Response

Management concurred with the recommendations, provided an alternative approach for

corrective actions at Langley, and provided general comments on our finding (see Appendix D).

Management stated that the procurement management survey team would review multipleaward order documentation during surveys and place added emphasis on the review of solesource order documentation. Additionally, management will encourage the maximum use of fair

opportunity among multiple-award orders and will use a 90-percent rate of competition as an

objective when assessing mission needs. Johnson has provided Center procurement personnel

three briefings on multiple-award topics, and Langley has taken measures to strengthen the

documentation of justifications related to sole-source selections.

Appropriate documentation of awards is a FAR requirement. However, management must also

take actions to ensure that sole-source orders are limited to those circumstances specified in the

FAR and that eligible contractors selected for multiple-award contracts are each fairly

considered for orders.

[original signed by]

Roberta L. Gross

Enclosure

 Final Report on Audit of Multiple-award Contracts
MULTIPLE-AWARD CONTRACTS
W September 28, 2001

TO: H/Associate Administrator for Procurement

FROM: W/Assistant Inspector General for Audits

SUBJECT: Final Report on Audit of Multiple-award Contracts

Assignment Number A-00-057-00

Report Number IG-01-040

The subject final report is provided for your information and use. Please refer to the Executive

Summary for the overall audit results. Our evaluation of your response is incorporated into the

body of the report. The corrective actions planned for the recommendations are responsive.

The recommendations are considered dispositioned and closed for reporting purposes.

If you have questions concerning the report, please contact Mr. Lorne A. Dear, Program

Director, Procurement Audits, at (818) 354-5634; Mr. Tony A. Lawson, Audit Program

Manager at (301) 286-6524; or Ms. Diane R. Choma, Auditor-in-Charge, at (301) 286-6443.

We appreciate the courtesies extended to the audit staff. The final report distribution is in

Appendix E.

[original signed by]

Alan J. Lamoreaux

Enclosure
2

cc:

AI/Associate Deputy Administrator

AB/Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions

B/Acting Chief Financial Officer

B/Comptroller

BF/Director, Financial Management Division

G/General Counsel

JM/Director, Management Assessment Division

ARC/Director, Ames Research Center

GSFC/Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

JSC/Acting Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

KSC/Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center

LaRC/Director, Langley Research Center

MSFC/Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center
3

bcc:

AIGA Chron

ARC/Audit Liaison Representative

GSFC/Audit Liaison Representative

JSC/Audit Liaison Representative

KSC/Audit Liaison Representative

LaRC/Audit Liaison Representative

MSFC/Audit Liaison Representative

W/L. Ball

K. Carson

L. Dear

T. Lawson

D. Choma

S. Laccheo

A. Larkin

L. Lin

N. Cipolla
Contents

Executive Summary, i

Introduction, 1

Finding and Recommendations, 2

Consideration of Contractors for Multiple-award Contracts, 2

Appendix A - Objectives, Scope, and Methodology, 7

Appendix B – Langley Sole-Source Orders, 10

Appendix C - Johnson Sole-Source Orders, 13

Appendix D – Management’s Response, 14

Appendix E - Report Distribution, 20
NASA Office of Inspector General

IG-01-040 September28, 2001

 A-00-057-00

Multiple-award Contracts

Executive Summary

Background. Multiple-award contracts allow the Government to procure services and

supplies more quickly using streamlined acquisition procedures while using the advantage of

competition to obtain optimum prices. Multiple-award contracts are usually broad in scope and

often have maximum values of millions of dollars. However, the broad scope of these contracts

may make it difficult to establish accurate pricing during the initial contract award process.

Therefore, for the multiple awards process, selection of contractors should focus on technical

ability.

The FASA authorizes agency heads to enter into multiple-award task and delivery order

contracts for procuring services and supplies. FASA establishes a general preference for using

multiple-award contracts and requires that the implementing FAR “establish a preference for

awarding, to a maximum extent practicable, multiple task or delivery order contracts for the

same or similar services or property.” FASA also stipulates that contractors under multipleaward contracts be provided a “fair opportunity for consideration” for award of individual task

and delivery orders (orders) costing more than $2,500. FAR 16.5, “Indefinite-Delivery

Contracts,” incorporated the FASA guidelines.

As part of its oversight duties, the NASA Headquarters Office of Procurement conducts

surveys on a 3-year cycle at NASA installations to address various procurement topics,

including organization, pre-award, post-award, and pricing.

Objectives. The overall objective of the audit was to evaluate NASA’s management of

multiple-award contracts.3 The specific objectives were to determine whether NASA’s (1) use

of multiple-award contracts was consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements and was

in the best interest of the Government and (2) management controls over the use of multipleaward contracts were adequate.

Appendix A contains further details on the audit objectives, scope, and methodology.

 

3

The audit covered multiple-award contracts at Ames Research Center (Ames), Goddard Space Flight Center

(Goddard), Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (Johnson), John F. Kennedy Space Center (Kennedy), Langley Research

Center (Langley), and George C. Marshall Space Center (Marshall).
ii

Results of Audit. NASA’s management of multiple-award contracts can be improved.

Although NASA’s use of multiple-award contracts was consistent with statutory requirements,

some orders awarded under these contracts were not in accordance with FAR requirements

and were not in the best interest of the Government. Specifically, at Johnson and Langley,

contracting officers issued 51 (49 percent) of 104 sole-source orders without obtaining

adequate competition. As a result, the Agency did not receive the benefits of competitive bids

and may be paying more for goods and services than necessary.

Recommendations. NASA should direct Center procurement officials to consider all

contractors for each order under multiple-award contracts, include the review of multiple-award

contracts in the procurement management surveys, and establish a competition goal for multipleaward contracts.

Management’s Response. Management concurred with all the recommendations and plans

to or has implemented the recommended actions. Management stated that the sole-source

orders were valid but lacked proper documentation. However, management also agreed that

the majority of orders cited in the report were not subjected to the fair opportunity process

because they represented effort that was initiated, but not completed, in prior contracts.

Evaluation of Management’s Response. We consider management’s planned or

implemented actions responsive to the recommendations. Management stated that the majority

of orders were not subjected to the fair opportunity process because they represented effort

that was begun, but not completed, on prior contracts. FAR 16.505 allows contracting officers

to award sole-source orders to a single contractor under four exceptions, including:

The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and efficiency

as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the contract [not a prior

contract], provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered for

the original order.

Management must do more than appropriately document contract files on sole-source decisions

for individual orders. To meet the intent of the FASA and the FAR, management must provide

an opportunity to fairly consider all contractors for orders issued under multiple-award

contracts. The FASA encourages agencies to “take continuous advantage of the benefits of

competition after contract award,” such as through the use of competitive orders. The FASA

further states the “continuing advantage of the competitive forces” will result in lower prices,

better quality, and improved contractor performance in satisfying customer requirements. The

FAR states that contracting officers must avoid situations in which contractors specialize in one

or a few areas within a statement of work, thus creating the likelihood that orders in those areas

will be awarded on a sole-source basis (such as the follow-on orders we questioned). Our

response to management’s general comments is in the recommendations section of the report.
Introduction

Multiple-award contracts are one vehicle agencies use to procure services or supplies with

indefinite deliveries and quantities. Two or more contractors compete for orders issued under

the contracts,4 and each contractor is generally provided a fair opportunity to compete for the

orders as required by the FAR.

The FAR states that contracting officers must avoid situations in which contractors specialize

exclusively in one or a few areas within the statement of work, thus creating the likelihood that

orders in those areas will be awarded on a sole-source basis. Contracting officers must provide

each contractor a fair opportunity to be considered unless the orders qualify for an exception as

prescribed by the FAR.

The Department of Defense (DOD) Office of Inspector General found significant problems with

task orders for services including orders awarded (1) without regard to price and (2) on a solesource basis without providing other contractors a fair opportunity to be considered.5

 In

testimony before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Senate

Committee on the Armed Services on Defense Acquisition, the DOD Deputy Inspector General

stated, “Multiple-award contracts are excellent tools for avoiding duplicative solicitations and

accelerating the contracting process. Their advantages are degraded, however, if the individual

task and delivery orders are inappropriately sole-sourced or poorly priced.”

 

4

 Task-order contracts do not have a specific quantity of services other than the minimum and maximum quantities

specified in dollars. Delivery-order contracts do not have a specific quantity of supplies other than the minimum and

maximum quantities specified in number of units. These contracts provide for the issuance of orders for the

performance of tasks or delivery of supplies during the period of the contract. Specific requirements for goods or

services are met through orders issued in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the respective contracts.

5

 The problems DOD identified are discussed in its report, “DOD Use of Multiple Award Task Order Contracts,”

Report Number 99-116, April 2, 1999.
2

Finding and Recommendations

Consideration of Contractors for Multiple-award Contracts

Contracting officers at Johnson and Langley issued 51 (49 percent) of 104 sole-source orders

without obtaining adequate competition as required by the FAR.6 Of the 51 sole-source

orders, 48 orders did not qualify for the FAR exceptions to the general requirement for

competition of awards under multiple-award contracts: 41 orders were a continuation of work

performed under prior contracts and 7 orders were follow-ons to previous orders. Also, three

orders had no sole-source justifications available in the contract files. As a result, NASA did

not receive the benefits of competitive bids and may be paying more for goods and services

than necessary.

FAR Requirements for Multiple-award Contracts

FAR 16.5, “Indefinite-Delivery Contracts,” establishes a preference for making multiple awards

of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity contracts under a single solicitation for the same or

similar supplies or services. FAR 16.505, “Ordering,” states that contracting officers must

provide each contractor a fair opportunity to be considered for each order exceeding $2,500

issued under multiple task-order contracts or multiple delivery-order contracts. Contracting

officers must also document in the contract file the rationale for award and price of each order.

However, FAR 16.505 allows contracting officers to award sole-source orders to a single

contractor under the following exceptions:

• The agency need for the supplies or services is so urgent that providing a fair

opportunity would result in unacceptable delays.

• Only one awardee is capable of providing the supplies or services required at the

level of quality required because the supplies or services ordered are unique or highly

specialized.

• The order must be issued on a sole-source basis in the interest of economy and

efficiency as a logical follow-on to an order already issued under the

contract, provided that all awardees were given a fair opportunity to be considered

for the original order [emphasis added].

• An order is necessary to satisfy a minimum guarantee.

Sole-Source Orders Reviewed

 

6

 In addition, Ames awarded one order as a logical follow-on to a previous sole-source order awarded to meet the

contract minimum. Because the order represented only 1 (less than 10 percent) out of 15 orders reviewed at Ames, we

did not include the order in the finding above.
3

At Langley, we reviewed 7 solicitations and 90 sole-source orders. At Johnson, we reviewed 3

solicitations and 14 sole-source orders. The 51 questionable sole-source orders are shown

below:

Questionable Sole-Source Orders

NASA

Center

Number of

Questionable SoleSource Orders

(a)

Number of SoleSource Orders

Reviewed

(b)

Percent

(a/b)

Johnson 11 14 79

Langley 40 90 44

Totals 51 104 49

See Appendixes B and C for the Langley and Johnson sole-source orders that were not

awarded in accordance with the FAR.

Consideration of Contractor Experience

Sole-Source Justifications. At Langley, contracting personnel relied exclusively on the

general guidance of the FAR regarding sole-source awards and excluded contractors from

competing for orders because they had not previously performed the requested service. Solesource justifications stated that the orders were to complete work started under expiring

contracts or that unnecessary delays would occur if awards were made to a contractor that had

not previously performed the related task or service.

Similarly, at Johnson, contracts awarded under one of the three solicitations reviewed was a

consolidation of existing contracts, and other contractors had prior experience related to the

orders. Sole-source justifications stated that the orders were being issued as sole-source to

sustain work already in progress but not completed in the expiring contract.

Langley Contracting Officers Disputed Sole-Source Justifications. Contracting officers

may exercise broad discretion in awarding orders and should consider such factors as past

performance, quality of deliverables, cost control, price or cost, or other relevant factors. For

three awards at Langley, the contracting officers disputed the sole-source justifications7

submitted by the technical officers that inappropriately involved a FAR exception. By

questioning the justifications, the contracting officers reversed the decision to sole-source the

orders. These challenges support the need to actively evaluate all sole-source justifications to

determine whether orders could be competitively awarded.

 

7

 FAR 16.505 requires the contracting officer to document in the contract file the rationale for placement and price of

each order. Contracting officers make the final award determination, but receive input from technical representatives in

the program/project offices.
4

Fair Opportunity for Consideration. The advantages of multiple-award contracts were

degraded because Johnson and Langley awarded the orders on a sole-source basis. Only in

rare circumstances should a contractor receive a sole-source order that meets the FAR

exceptions to awarding competitive orders. The contractors were not given a fair opportunity

to be considered for the 48 sole-source orders. As a result, NASA did not receive the benefits

of competitive bids, which contribute to fair and reasonable prices, and may have paid more

than necessary to receive the services or supplies.

Competition Goal for Multiple-award Contracting

To promote competition, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) established

performance guidelines for three Federal agencies8 to obtain competition on 90 percent of

orders costing more than $2,500.9 For the 662 orders we reviewed at 6 Centers, NASA

competed 81 percent of their orders. While this shows commitment to competition, NASA’s

percentage of competitive awards could be increased if it implemented the OFPP performance

guidelines. NASA can further ensure that Centers are complying with the performance

guidelines and properly applying FAR guidance by reviewing sole-source orders under multipleaward contracts during the procurement management surveys. NASA Headquarters Office of

Procurement conducts procurement management surveys on a 3-year cycle at NASA

installations to determine whether the procurement process is accomplishing program

requirements in the most advantageous and appropriate manner.

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of

Response

The Associate Administrator for Procurement should:

1. Review the propriety of sole-source orders under multiple-award contracts

during the procurement management surveys.

Management’s Response. Concur. The Office of Procurement’s management survey team

will continue to review multiple-award order documentation during surveys and place an added

emphasis on the review of sole-source order documentation. See Appendix D for the complete

text of management’s comments.

Evaluation of Response. Management’s comments are responsive to the recommendation.

We consider the recommendation dispositioned and closed for reporting purposes.

 

8

 This performance guideline was established in 1996 for the Department of Transportation, the National Institutes of

Health, and the Defense Information Systems Agency.

9

 The OFPP guideline was identified in the General Accounting Office report GAO/NSIAD 98-215, “Acquisition

Reform: Multiple-award Contracting at Six Federal Organizations,” September 1998.
5

2. Establish a specific competition goal (percentage of orders competed) similar to

OFPP’s goal for multiple-award contracts.

Management’s Response. Concur. Management will encourage the maximum use of fair

opportunity among multiple-award orders where appropriate. Management will also encourage

the Centers to utilize, as an objective, a 90-percent rate of competition among multiple-award

orders (see Appendix D).

Evaluation of Response. Management’s comments are responsive to the recommendation.

We consider the recommendation dispositioned and closed for reporting purposes.

3. The Director, Johnson Space Center should direct contracting officers to fairly

consider all contractors who submit bids for each order under multiple-award contracts

as required by FAR.

Management’s Response. Concur. In conjunction with Recommendation 1, Johnson has

held several briefings for Center procurement personnel addressing multiple-award topics.

Evaluation of Response. The actions taken by management are responsive to the

recommendation. We consider the recommendation dispositioned and closed for reporting

purposes.

4. The Director, Langley Research Center should direct contracting officers to

appropriately document all facts, including judgments and assumptions for conclusions

as to best value when implementing FAR guidance for justifying sole-source selections

under multiple-award contracts.

Management’s Response. Concur. In conjunction with Recommendation 1, Langley has

taken measures to strengthen documentation of justifications related to multiple-award contract

sole-source order selections.

Evaluation of Response. The actions taken by management are responsive to the

recommendation. We consider the recommendation dispositioned and closed for reporting

purposes.

Langley’s decision to appropriately document all facts regarding sole-source selections is

required by FAR 16.505(b)(4). However, even if orders we identified as questionable were

appropriately documented as to the selection rationale, we would still have taken exception to

those orders that were follow-on orders to previous contracts. Both Johnson and Langley

identified the following additional factors, which contributed to the issuance of sole-source

orders for the contracts they reviewed.
6

• The period of performance was expiring under the previous contracts; however, the

effort involved was not completed.

• The effort required under the orders was consistent with the scope of the new contracts.

• The effort required was technically complex, and competition of the orders would have

disrupted critical program milestones.

• The selected contractors were the only responsible sources able to continue and

complete the effort without major impacts to the program.

We agree that complexity and impact to program schedules may be valid exceptions to the

multiple-award process. The Agency’s rationale10 for issuing the work as sole-source orders

indicates that these contracts were probably not suitable candidates for multiple-award

contracts in accordance with FAR Sections 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(A) and 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(B).

• FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(A) states:

The contracting officer must avoid situations in which awardees specialize

exclusively in one or a few areas within the statement of work, thus creating the

likelihood that orders in those areas will be awarded on a sole-source basis. . . .

• FAR 16.504(c)(1)(ii)(B) states:

The contracting officer must not use the multiple-award approach if . . . only

one contractor is capable of providing performance at the level of quality

required because the supplies or services are unique or highly specialized.

Management conducted its own analysis of two of the contracts we had reviewed. The two

contracts involved issuing sole-source orders as a way to accomplish previous contract efforts,

which is not consistent with the multiple-award approach identified in the FAR. The more fitting

instrument may have been a separate follow-on contract to complete the effort.

Further, management responded stated that “subject(ing) these orders to the fair opportunity

process would have potentially amounted to meaningless competitions, since the initial

contractor would have had an unfair competitive advantage.” This statement contradicts the

FAR, which requires that all contractors be given a fair opportunity to compete on individual

orders under the multiple-award contracts.

 

10 The rationale was that the work was a continuation of previously incomplete efforts under separate contracts and

that the contractors were the “only responsible sources able to continue and complete the effort.”
7

Appendix A. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Objectives

The overall objective of the audit was to evaluate NASA’s management of multiple-award

contracts. The specific objectives were to determine whether NASA’s (1) use of multipleaward contracts was consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements and was in the best

interest of the Government and (2) management controls over the use of multiple-award

contracts were adequate.

Scope and Methodology

We limited our review to indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts at the NASA Centers

visited. We relied on the individual NASA Centers to provide data on their open and active

universe of multiple-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts.

During the audit, we:

• Reviewed open and active NASA multiple-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity

contracts as of September 2000 at Goddard, Johnson, and Langley and as of December

2000 at Ames, Kennedy, and Marshall.

• Reviewed multiple-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract orders to determine

whether they were competed or issued on a sole-source basis, all contractors were given a

fair opportunity to compete, preferred contractors were not used, awards to other than the

lowest bidder were justified, and price was an award consideration.

• Interviewed contracting officers and contracting officer’s technical representatives, as

necessary.
8

Appendix A

At the six Centers visited, we completed a 100-percent review of open multiple-award

indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracts shown below.

Universe of Multiple-award Contracts and Orders

Center

A. Number of

Contracts

Reviewed

B. Number of

Orders Reviewed

C. Number of

Sole-Source

Orders1

D. Number of

Sole-Source

Orders

Questioned2

Ames 14 88 15 1

Goddard 20 91 13 0

Johnson 17 59 14 11

Kennedy 11 33 9 0

Langley 27 366 90 40

Marshall 6 25 0 0

TOTALS 95 662 141 52

Award Values $352,871,955 $139,843,690 $8,677,950

1

The “Number of Sole-Source Orders” is included in Column B, “Number of Orders Reviewed.”

2

The “Number of Sole-Source Orders Questioned” is included in Column C, “Number of SoleSource Orders.”

Management Controls Reviewed

We reviewed management controls over the use of multiple-award indefinite delivery/indefinite

quantity contracts. The documents we used to evaluate management controls were:

• FAR 16.5, “Indefinite-Delivery Contracts,” 1996 through 2000

• NASA FAR Supplement 1816.5, “Indefinite-Delivery Contracts”

• Office of Federal Procurement Policy, “Best Practices for Multiple Award Task and

Delivery Order Contracting,” July 1997

• Procurement Information Circular, “Delivery Order and Task Order Contracts,” April 28,

1998
9

Appendix A

• NASA Procurement Management Survey Reports

- Ames, August 2-13, 1999

- Goddard, November 30 through December 10, 1998

- Johnson, February 28 through March 10, 2000

- Kennedy, May 10-21, 1999

- Langley, October 11-20, 2000

- Marshall, June 15-27, 1998

Audit Field Work

We conducted field work from September 2000 through May 2001 at Ames, Goddard,

Johnson, Kennedy, Langley, and Marshall. We performed the audit in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards.
10

Appendix B. Langley Sole-Source Orders

The Langley Research Center (Langley) awarded 366 orders under 27 contracts. Langley

awarded 90 orders as sole-source orders and completed justifications for 40 (44 percent) of

the 90 orders that did not meet the intent of the Federal Acquisition Regulation. The 40 orders

are shown below:

Contract Contractor Task/Delivery

Order

Award

Value Sole-Source Justification

Solicitation 1-064-GH.2755, Reliance Consolidated Models (three contracts awarded)

NAS1-97030 Advanced Technologies, Inc. L186R $3,580 Follow-on to Delivery Order

L166R that was sole sourced

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L054R $14,921 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19451

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L057R $71,114 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19451

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L077R $45,366 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19351

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L085R $14,986 Contractor designed and fabricated

two previous models

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L095R $662,686 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19451

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L131R $15,053 Follow-on to Delivery Order

L057R that was sole sourced

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L174R $12,593

Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19151 and completed under

Delivery Orders L057R and L095R

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L179R $4,628 Contractor completed the design

and fabrication under NAS1-19451

NAS1-97031 Dynamic Engineering, Inc. L221R $51,145 Follow-on to Delivery Order

L131R that was sole sourced

NAS1-97032 Micro Craft, Inc. L056R $396,661 Follow-on to work started under

NAS2-13471

NAS1-97032 Micro Craft, Inc. L061R $488,399 Follow-on to work started under

NAS2-13471

NAS1-97032 Micro Craft, Inc. L064R $41,467 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19452

NAS1-97032 Micro Craft, Inc. L069R $217,165 Follow-on to Delivery Order

L056R that was sole sourced

NAS1-97032 Micro Craft, Inc. L075R $38,757 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19452

NAS1-97032 Micro Craft, Inc. L091R $11,494 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19452

NAS1-97032 Micro Craft, Inc. L176R $23,531

Follow-on to Delivery Order

L130R that was sole sourced

because of contractor's unique

capabilities
11

Appendix B

Contract Contractor Task/Delivery

Order

Award

Value Sole-Source Justification

Solicitation 1-132-DS.1159, Materials and Structures Technology for Aerospace Vehicles (three contracts

awarded)

NAS1-99070 Boeing Commercial

Airplane Group 3 $272,658 Follow-on to work started underNAS1-20014

Solicitation 1-064-GGH.1684, Systems Engineering for Research Facility Integrated Systems (three

contracts awarded)

NAS1-98090 Aero Systems Engineering 1003 $77,707

Contractor is providing the same

equipment and software for other

system interfaces

NAS1-98090 Aero Systems Engineering 1006 $249,842

Contractor is providing the same

equipment and software for other

system models

NAS1-98090 Aero Systems Engineering 1007 $135,910 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-20001

NAS1-98090 Aero Systems Engineering 1008 $238,366 Contractor is providing hardware and

software under NAS1-20001

NAS1-98090 Aero Systems Engineering 1009 $9,954 Contractor developed the original

software

NAS1-98090 Aero Systems Engineering 1010 $25,633 Follow-on to Delivery Order 1008 that

was sole sourced

NAS1-98090 Aero Systems Engineering 1011 $44,584 Follow-on to work completed under a

previous contract

NAS1-98090 Aero Systems Engineering 1013 $34,156 Follow-on to work completed under a

previous contract

NAS1-98091 DynCorp Information and

Engineering Technology 1004 $42,217 Contractor possesses previous relevantexperience

NAS1-98091 DynCorp Information and

Engineering Technology 1005 $33,740 Contractor has another contract forwork at the tunnel

Solicitation 1-063-DIG.1129, Flight Critical Systems Research (four contracts awarded)

NAS1-00108 Rannoch Corporation 1001 $267,858 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-99127

NAS1-00108 Rannoch Corporation 1002 $237,584 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-19214

NAS1-00108 Rannoch Corporation 1003 $23,497 Follow-on to work previously

performed
12

Appendix B

Contract Contractor Task/Delivery

Order

Award

Value Sole-Source Justification

Solicitation 1-109-DF.1336, Research and Noise Control for Aircraft and Space Transportation Vehicles

(nine contracts awarded)

NAS1-00087 Georgia Technical Applied

Research Corp. A001 $82,750 Follow-on to work completed underNAS2-14307

NAS1-00088 Lockheed Martin

Corporation A001 $96,032 Follow-on to work started in previousfiscal years

NAS1-00088 Lockheed Martin

Corporation A002 $91,248 Follow-on to work started in previousfiscal years

NAS1-00091 Bell Helicopter, Textron 004 $72,723 Follow-on to work started under

NAS1-20094

NAS1-00091 Bell Helicopter, Textron 005 $276,868 Follow-on to ongoing work and

contractor is the original manufacturer

NAS1-00092 Boeing Advanced

Rotorcraft Company 002 $68,500 Follow-on to work started under aprevious task

NAS1-00092 Boeing Advanced

Rotorcraft Company 004 $224,783 Follow-on to work started underNAS1-20094

NAS1-00094 Wyle Laboratories D001 $88,407 Follow-on to work started in previous

fiscal years

Solicitation 1-056-DSK.1149, Development and Application of Next Generation Structural Analysis and

Design Technologies (three contracts awarded)

NAS1-98024 MRJ Technology

Solutions 103 $57,279 No justification

Langley Total Award Value $4,865,842
13

Appendix C. Johnson Sole-Source Orders

The Johnson Space Center (Johnson) awarded 61 orders11 under 17 contracts. Johnson

awarded 14 orders as sole-source orders and completed justifications for 11 (79 percent) of

the 14 orders that did not meet the FAR requirements. The 11 orders are shown below:

Contract Contractor Task/Delivery

Order

Award

Value Sole-Source Justification

Solicitation 9-BE-13-09-7-28P, Extravehicular Activity (six contracts awarded)

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 901 $1,287,459 Follow-on to work started underNAS9-19194

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 902 $209,471 Follow-on to work started underNAS9-19194

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 903 $105,315 Follow-on to work started underNAS9-19194

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 904 $1,305,579 Follow-on to work started underNAS9-19194

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 905 $217,080 No justification

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 906 $134,888 Follow-on to work started underNAS9-19194

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 907 $129,807 Follow-on to work started underNAS9-19194

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 908 $50,348 Follow-on to the effort underprevious contract NAS9-19194

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 909 $9,240 No justification

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 911 $88,055 Follow-on to work started underNAS9-19194

NAS9-98013 Oceaneering Space

Systems 918 $150,000 Follow-on to work started underNAS9-19194

Johnson Total Award Value $3,687,242

 

11 We reviewed 59 of the 61 orders. Files were not available for two orders.
14

Appendix D. Management’s Response
15

Appendix D
16

Appendix D
17

Appendix D
18

Appendix D
19

Appendix D
20

Appendix E. Report Distribution

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Headquarters

A/Administrator

AI/Associate Deputy Administrator

AA/Chief of Staff

AB/Associate Deputy Administrator for Institutions

B/Acting Chief Financial Officer

B/Comptroller

BF/Director, Financial Management Division

G/General Counsel

H/Associate Administrator for Procurement

HK/Director, Contract Management Division

HS/Director, Program Operations Division

J/Associate Administrator for Management Systems

JM/Director, Management Assessment Division

L/Acting Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs

M/Associate Administrator for Space Flight

R/Associate Administrator for Aerospace Technology

Y/Associate Administrator for Earth Science

NASA Centers

Director, Ames Research Center

Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Acting Director, Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Director, John F. Kennedy Space Center

 Chief Counsel, John F. Kennedy Space Center

Director, Langley Research Center

Director, George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Non-NASA Federal Organizations and Individuals

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division, Office of Management and

 Budget

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch, Energy and Science Division, Office

 of Management and Budget

Managing Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, General Accounting

 Office

Senior Professional Staff Member, Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and
21

 Space
22

Appendix E

Chairman and Ranking Minority Member – Congressional Committees and

Subcommittees

Senate Committee on Appropriations

Senate Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs

House Committee on Appropriations

House Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies

House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and

 Intergovernmental Relations

House Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations

House Subcommittee on Technology and Procurement Policy

House Committee on Science

House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science

Congressional Member

Honorable Pete Sessions, U.S. House of Representatives
NASA Assistant Inspector General for Auditing

Reader Survey

The NASA Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of

our reports. We wish to make our reports responsive to our customers’ interests, consistent

with our statutory responsibility. Could you help us by completing our reader survey? For your

convenience, the questionnaire can be completed electronically through our homepage at

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/audits.html or can be mailed to the Assistant Inspector

General for Auditing; NASA Headquarters, Code W, Washington, DC 20546-0001.

Report Title: Multiple-award Contracts

Report Number: Report Date: 

Circle the appropriate rating for the following statements.

Strongly

Agree Agree Neutral Disagree StronglyDisagree N/A

1. The report was clear, readable, and logically

organized.

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

2. The report was concise and to the point. 5 4 3 2 1 N/A

3. We effectively communicated the audit

objectives, scope, and methodology.

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

4. The report contained sufficient information to

support the finding(s) in a balanced and

objective manner.

5 4 3 2 1 N/A

Overall, how would you rate the report?

Excellent Fair

Very Good Poor

Good

If you have any additional comments or wish to elaborate on any of the above

responses, please write them here. Use additional paper if necessary. 

 

 

 

 

 
How did you use the report? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we improve our report? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How would you identify yourself? (Select one)

Congressional Staff Media

NASA Employee Public Interest

Private Citizen Other: 

Government: Federal: State: Local: 

May we contact you about your comments?

Yes: No: 

Name: 

Telephone: 

Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey.
Major Contributors to the Report

Lorne A. Dear, Program Director, Procurement Audits

Tony A. Lawson, Program Manager

Diane R. Choma, Auditor-in-Charge

Sandra L. Laccheo, Auditor

Amy L. Larkin, Auditor

Lydia C. Lin, Auditor

Joseph F. Kroener, Procurement Analyst

Nancy Cipolla, Report Process Manager

Debra Schuerger, Program Assistant