OIG Finds Problems With Space Act Agreements
OIG Report: NASA’s Use of Space Act Agreements
“The Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit released today found that NASA cannot identify the cost incurred or effectively measure the benefits derived from nonreimbursable Space Act Agreements because it lacks a close-out process or similar mechanism to document results. Although these agreements involve no exchange of funds, NASA nevertheless bears the expense associated with any personnel, facilities, expertise, or equipment it contributes. Consequently, objectively assessing the value these agreements bring to the Agency and to the broader aeronautical, scientific, and space exploration communities is difficult. In addition, the OIG concluded that NASA could better ensure equal access to its facilities and capabilities and increase interest in Space Act opportunities by expanding its efforts to solicit a broader number of potentially interested parties. The OIG also found that NASA has unclear guidance regarding when it is appropriate to use Space Act Agreements as opposed to leases and how the agreements must align with the Agency’s mission.”
I understand the point of the OIG’s findings. But would NASA save any money if the NASA employees weren’t assigned to work on these SAA agreements? The answer is no, they would be paid anyway. Although NASA does have RIF’s but the workforce isn’t as dynamic as it would be in a commercial business.
For instance, the astronaut corp has shrunk pretty dramatically since the shuttle stopped flying. But now there are a lot of those “astronauts” in non-active management jobs at NASA. So what was the real savings in the astronaut count reduction? Did other NASA employees get fired so the astros could take their jobs. I seriously doubt that.
That was a point I was trying to make when Keith brought up that NASA was charging the ISEE reboot to use the DSN. What, was NASA going to turn it off for the half-hour that ISEE would be using if they didn’t pay to save on the electricity and not pay staff? Of course not. So why couldn’t the just try and communicate with their own ancient spacecraft? It really wouldn’t cost NASA anything. That money is already spent.
Folks:
Space Act Agreements quite probably provide the most valuable return of NASA precious resources. The facilities and personal used allow the decades of dedication and research to be leveraged by American industry into real applications. So, what’s the problem here?
The facilities and personal are there already! Space Act Agreements make the best use of any underutilized time and equipment that should, you’d think, maximize taxpayer investment.
How can you put a dollar value on an end result that has no certain outcome or even a definite timeline?
This isn’t NASA’s problem, it’s a solution that has borne fruit on many occasions, like SpaceX’s development of the PICAX heat shield material, an improved version of NASA’s PICA heat shield flown on the Stardust mission.
Space Act Agreements work just fine, thank you! We know where the real problem lies… and there’s not solution to that coming any time in the foreseeable future!
tinker
Agree with you. So Everyone says NASA is spending too much money esp on things they are not using. Other people will pay you to use them. You collect the money to reduce the cost of operations at these centers. NOW OIG wants to complain about who you rent to, or how much you are getting in rent? Really, this is the big problem? Unless someone can show that the center managers are keeping the money, there is no issue here. Besides, movies? Did you see the extra features on GI Joe 2. It was essentially a free advertisement for NASA. Wish we could rent out the capital for some useful activities. SO NASA is being creative and gets criticized. No wonder no one working there wants to try something new.
NASA needs to drop the agency mission constraint on SAAs and encourage Centers to offer their facilities for use by third parties with cost reimbursement. This helps reduce the agency’s operating costs and encourages interactions between industry and NASA. Ditto drop the mission requirement for Enhanced Use Leases.
just as what N.A.C.A. did in 20th century.
Nice to see some sense in these forums. Wish some would trickle down to whoever wrote that report. Throwing more paperwork at SAA’s is NOT the way to go. If anything, keep pushing the other way and make it easier.
One other thing. The best way for NASA to appeal to a broader base is showing success with the ones they have now. They won’t have to look for customers. They will start banging on the door.
Actually, this report has Sen. Shelby’s influence writ all over it. Plays right into the poison pill amendment he’s trying to push on Commercial Crew.
Where Shelby is concerned, I don’t believe in coincidences.
Is there anyone from OIG who would care to state unequivocally that there was no input from Senator Shelby on this investigation?
The SAAs are the most productive activities NASA has. Now the OIG wants to claim they don’t have enough paperwork to evaluate how much NASA’s contribution of unused facilities is worth. Hey, OIG, nobody is breaking down the gates asking to rent them. “Effectively measure the value of nonreimbursable agreements?” If you are on the ball you know. If not, paperwork won’t help. The question is, is there anyone at OIG that actually knows what anything NASA does is worth? If not, how will they know if the paper figures mean anything? And Shelby wants the Commercial Crew SAAs to be saddled with so much paperwork that their costs will be doubled. Is there anybody out there that wants to get useful work done efficiently?
We have folks contact us fairly often about utilizing our testing capabilities but it is difficult to get a SAA in place due to the constraints in the act. The majority of requests we get are ultimately rejected. Part of the reason is the requirement that, for reimbursable agreements, the NASA service or facility requested is not available from a domestic commercial source. The following clause kills most of our requests:
for reimbursable SAAs, a description of how the NASA goods, services, and facilities to be committed are unique and not otherwise available on the U.S. commercial market from another source;
It can be a difficult hurdle to overcome because it is rarely cut and dried.
Sometimes all it requires is being a little creative in explaining why the NASA facilities are unique. It’s unfortunate that the agency seems to have forgotten its original mission – to act as a partner to American industry.