DoD's $19.25M Engineering Services Contract for Fort Bliss Field Support Awarded to Jacobs/Huitt-Zollars

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,251,301 ($19.3M)

Contractor: Jacobs/Huitt-Zollars, a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-10-27

End Date: 2009-10-19

Contract Duration: 357 days

Daily Burn Rate: $53.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES, FORT BLISS, TX

Place of Performance

Location: EL PASO, EL PASO County, TEXAS, 79906

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.3 million to JACOBS/HUITT-ZOLLARS, A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES, FORT BLISS, TX Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in essential engineering services for a major military installation. 2. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 357 days indicates a focused, short-term need for these services. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide predictability for the government. 5. The contract was awarded to a joint venture, potentially indicating a need for specialized or combined expertise. 6. The base award amount of $5.39M suggests initial scope, with potential for task orders up to the ceiling. 7. The contract falls under engineering services, a critical support function for military operations and infrastructure.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's base award of $5.39M out of a potential $19.25M ceiling suggests a phased approach or initial scope. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure is generally favorable for cost control. Benchmarking against similar engineering support contracts at large military installations would provide further context on pricing efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 10 bidders suggests a healthy level of interest and competition for this type of service. A competitive environment generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract likely resulted in a more cost-effective outcome for taxpayers compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and the personnel stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas, who will receive essential engineering support services. Services delivered likely include design, planning, and technical support for infrastructure, facilities, and operational needs at the base. The geographic impact is concentrated at Fort Bliss, Texas, a major U.S. Army installation. The contract supports a workforce of engineers and technical specialists, potentially including both civilian and contractor personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial requirements are not clearly defined, leading to cost overruns beyond the base award.
Reliance on a joint venture may introduce complexities in management and coordination, potentially impacting delivery timelines.
The firm-fixed-price nature requires careful monitoring to ensure the contractor meets all performance obligations within the agreed price.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive market and likely fair pricing.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract is for essential engineering services, crucial for the operational readiness and infrastructure maintenance of Fort Bliss.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector supports a wide range of government and private sector needs, including infrastructure development, defense projects, and facility management. Spending in this area is often driven by large-scale government projects and base operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other engineering service contracts awarded to support major military installations or federal facilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities if the joint venture partners engage them. Without specific subcontracting plans detailed in the award, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this particular contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Fort Bliss Base Operations Support
Army Engineering Command Contracts
Department of Defense Facilities Engineering
Military Construction Projects Support
Professional Services Contracts (DoD)

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope is not tightly managed under FFP.
Contractor performance risk due to complexity of engineering services.
Reliance on joint venture structure may introduce management complexities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.3 million to JACOBS/HUITT-ZOLLARS, A JOINT VENTURE. FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES, FORT BLISS, TX

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JACOBS/HUITT-ZOLLARS, A JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $19.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-10-27. End: 2009-10-19.

What is the track record of Jacobs/Huitt-Zollars, A Joint Venture, in performing similar engineering services for the Department of Defense?

Assessing the track record of Jacobs/Huitt-Zollars requires examining their past performance on similar contracts. Jacobs, as a large engineering firm, has a broad history of government contracting, including significant work with the DoD on infrastructure, environmental, and design projects. Huitt-Zollars also has experience in architecture and engineering, particularly within the public sector. The joint venture structure suggests a specific pooling of capabilities for this contract. A detailed review would involve analyzing past performance evaluations (CPARS), any disputes or claims filed, and the successful completion of prior DoD engineering service contracts by both entities and potentially their prior joint ventures. Their ability to manage complex projects, adhere to schedules, and control costs on similar past efforts would be key indicators of their suitability for this Fort Bliss contract.

How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated value or budget for similar engineering services at large military installations?

The total potential value of $19.25 million for engineering services at Fort Bliss provides a benchmark. To compare this effectively, one would need to identify similar contracts awarded for base support or infrastructure engineering at other large Army or DoD installations of comparable size and complexity. Factors such as the specific scope of work (e.g., design, planning, construction oversight, environmental engineering), contract duration, and the level of competition influence pricing. If this contract's pricing, particularly on a per-service or per-deliverable basis, falls within or below the range of comparable contracts, it suggests good value. Conversely, if it appears significantly higher, it might warrant further investigation into the specific requirements or market conditions that led to the higher cost.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this firm-fixed-price contract for engineering services?

The primary risk indicator for a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially for complex services like engineering, is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability if costs exceed estimates. For the government, the risk lies in ensuring the contractor adequately performs all required services within the fixed price. Scope creep is another risk; if the government's needs evolve beyond the initial SOW, managing changes under an FFP contract can lead to disputes or require contract modifications that increase the price. Contractor performance risk is also present – if the awarded joint venture lacks the necessary expertise or resources, it could lead to delays or subpar deliverables. The firm-fixed-price nature shifts most cost risk to the contractor, but performance risk remains for the government.

How effective are the competition levels in ensuring cost-effectiveness for taxpayers on this type of contract?

The fact that this contract was awarded under 'full and open competition' with 10 bidders is a strong positive indicator for cost-effectiveness. A higher number of bidders generally signifies a more competitive marketplace, which pressures offerors to submit more competitive pricing to win the contract. This process allows the government to receive proposals from various firms, enabling a comparison of technical approaches and costs. The competitive bidding process helps ensure that the selected contractor offers a fair price for the required engineering services, thereby maximizing the value for taxpayers. Without this level of competition, there would be a higher risk of paying a premium.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services at Fort Bliss or similar Army installations?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for engineering services at Fort Bliss and comparable Army installations is crucial for context. This involves examining prior contracts for similar services, their values, durations, and the contractors involved. Significant year-over-year increases or decreases in spending could indicate changes in infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, or budget allocations. Understanding the typical contract vehicles used (e.g., IDIQs, task orders) and the average contract values can help determine if the $19.25 million ceiling for this specific contract is within the expected range. High historical spending might suggest a consistent, ongoing need for such services, while low spending could indicate a temporary requirement or deferred maintenance.

What are the implications of the contract's duration (357 days) on the scope and potential for follow-on work?

A contract duration of 357 days suggests a defined, relatively short-term requirement for the engineering services. This duration is typical for specific projects, studies, or support tasks rather than long-term base operations. It implies that the scope of work is likely well-defined and achievable within approximately one year. The short duration also means that the government may anticipate needing further engineering services beyond this period, potentially leading to follow-on contracts or task orders if the initial effort is successful and requirements persist. This structure allows for flexibility in adapting to changing needs or re-competing services if market conditions or requirements evolve.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Offers Received: 10

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5822 CROMO DR STE 210, EL PASO, TX, 16

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $19,251,301

Exercised Options: $19,251,301

Current Obligation: $19,251,301

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9126G09D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline