DoD's $35.7M Imperatis Corp. contract for engineering services shows fair value with moderate competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,753,308 ($35.8M)

Contractor: Imperatis Corp.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-03-20

End Date: 2010-09-30

Contract Duration: 559 days

Daily Burn Rate: $64.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: GRYPHON

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22202

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.8 million to IMPERATIS CORP. for work described as: GRYPHON Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar engineering service contracts. 2. Competition was robust, indicating potential for price discovery and value for taxpayers. 3. The contractor has a history of performance with the government, suggesting lower execution risk. 4. This contract falls within the typical range for engineering services supporting defense operations. 5. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure warrants scrutiny for cost control. 6. The contract's duration and delivery order nature suggest flexibility in meeting evolving needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award amount of approximately $35.7 million for engineering services appears to be within a reasonable range when compared to similar contracts for specialized engineering support within the Department of Defense. The pricing structure, a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), allows for flexibility but requires diligent oversight to ensure costs remain controlled and the fixed fee provides adequate incentive for efficient performance. Benchmarking against industry standards for engineering services suggests that the overall value proposition is fair, provided that the scope of work and deliverables are met effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the initial pool of potential offerors may have been narrowed, the subsequent competition was open to all qualified sources. The presence of multiple bidders in such a scenario generally fosters competitive pricing and encourages contractors to offer their best value. The specific details of the exclusion of sources would be critical to fully understanding the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: The open competition, even after an initial exclusion, suggests that taxpayers benefited from a competitive bidding process, likely leading to more favorable pricing than a sole-source award.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from specialized engineering expertise to support its complex operational requirements. Services delivered likely include design, analysis, testing, and technical support for defense systems. The geographic impact is primarily tied to the locations where defense projects requiring these engineering services are based. The contract supports a workforce of skilled engineers and technical professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
The 'after exclusion of sources' clause requires further investigation to ensure maximum competition was achieved.
The specific deliverables and performance metrics are not detailed, making it difficult to assess performance outcomes.
The duration of the contract (559 days) is substantial, increasing the potential for scope creep or changing requirements.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
The contractor, Imperatis Corp., has experience performing government contracts.
The contract is for essential engineering services supporting defense needs.
The delivery order structure allows for phased execution and adaptation to evolving requirements.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services represent a significant sector within government contracting, supporting a wide array of federal agencies, particularly in defense, infrastructure, and research. The market is characterized by specialized firms offering expertise in areas such as civil, mechanical, electrical, and aerospace engineering. This contract fits within the broader category of professional services, where agencies procure specialized knowledge and technical capabilities to augment their internal resources. Comparable spending benchmarks for engineering services vary widely based on complexity, duration, and specific technical requirements.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. The award to Imperatis Corp., a presumably larger entity, suggests that small businesses may not have been the primary focus for this particular procurement. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were mandated or utilized.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures are embedded within the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to deliverables. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense Engineering Services
Professional Services Contracts
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
Department of Defense Procurement

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires close monitoring to prevent cost overruns.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation into the extent of competition.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes outcome assessment difficult.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.8 million to IMPERATIS CORP.. GRYPHON

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IMPERATIS CORP..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $35.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-03-20. End: 2010-09-30.

What is Imperatis Corp.'s track record with government contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Imperatis Corp. has a history of receiving government contracts, primarily from the Department of Defense. Analyzing their past performance indicates a pattern of engaging in various service contracts, including those related to engineering, IT, and program management. While specific details on past performance ratings are not provided here, the continued award of contracts suggests a generally acceptable performance history. However, a deeper dive into past contract closeouts, any incurred penalties, or contractor performance evaluation reports (CPARS) would offer a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and effectiveness in fulfilling government requirements.

How does the value of this $35.7 million contract compare to similar engineering service contracts awarded by the DoD?

The $35.7 million award for engineering services by the DoD falls within a common range for complex, multi-year support contracts. Engineering services contracts can vary significantly in price based on specialization, duration, and the specific agency or program being supported. Contracts for basic engineering consulting might be lower, while those involving advanced research, development, or large-scale system integration can easily exceed this amount. Benchmarking against contracts with similar North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes (like 541330 for Engineering Services) and similar contract types (CPFF) awarded within the same timeframe by the DoD would provide a more precise comparison. Without access to a detailed database of comparable contracts, it's reasonable to assess this award as moderate in value for specialized defense engineering support.

What are the primary risks associated with this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure?

The primary risk associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is the potential for cost overruns. In a CPFF structure, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. While the fee is fixed, the total cost is not, meaning the government bears the risk of cost increases. This necessitates robust oversight from the contracting officer and administrative team to ensure that all costs claimed are reasonable, allocable, and directly related to the contract's scope of work. Without stringent cost monitoring and control, the total contract cost could significantly exceed initial estimates, diminishing the value for the taxpayer. The fixed fee provides some incentive for efficiency, but the core risk remains the government's exposure to escalating costs.

What does 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' imply about the procurement process and potential value for taxpayers?

The term 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' indicates a two-stage procurement process. Initially, certain sources may have been excluded, possibly due to specific requirements, prior relationships, or unique capabilities. However, the subsequent phase involved 'Full and Open Competition,' meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. This implies that while the initial pool might have been limited, the final competition was broad, which is generally beneficial for taxpayers. It suggests that the government sought to maximize competition within the constraints of specific needs, likely leading to better pricing and a wider range of technical solutions than a sole-source or limited competition scenario. The 'exclusion' aspect warrants scrutiny to ensure it was justified and did not unduly restrict competition.

How does this contract align with broader Department of Defense spending patterns in engineering services?

This contract aligns with the Department of Defense's consistent and substantial spending on engineering services. The DoD relies heavily on external expertise to design, develop, maintain, and upgrade its complex weapon systems, infrastructure, and technological capabilities. Spending in this category is driven by the need for specialized skills that may not be available in-house or by the sheer volume of projects. Contracts like this one, for approximately $35.7 million, are typical for supporting specific programs or providing ongoing technical assistance. DoD's overall engineering services budget is in the billions annually, reflecting its critical role in national defense. This specific award represents a fraction of that larger spending, contributing to the overall objective of maintaining military readiness and technological superiority.

What are the potential implications of the 559-day duration and delivery order structure on cost and performance?

A contract duration of 559 days (approximately 18 months) combined with a delivery order structure offers both potential benefits and risks. The delivery order structure allows the government to order services incrementally, providing flexibility to adapt to changing requirements or priorities without modifying the base contract extensively. This can lead to better cost management if orders are placed judiciously. However, a longer duration also increases the window for potential scope creep, cost escalation, and performance degradation if oversight is not consistently applied. For taxpayers, the flexibility can be advantageous by preventing over-procurement, but it requires diligent management to ensure that each order represents necessary work at a fair price and that the overall project stays on track and within budget.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2231 CRYSTAL DR, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $92,438,542

Exercised Options: $92,438,542

Current Obligation: $35,753,308

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911QX07D0012

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline