DoD's $14.7M contract for financial and accounting services awarded to Computer Sciences Corporation shows potential for cost savings

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,679,708 ($14.7M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Information Technology Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-04-01

End Date: 2005-03-31

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $40.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Official Description: 200409!000006!9700!HQ0425!DEF FIN & ACTG SVC, INDIANAPOLIS!MDA22002A0001 !A!N! !N!0006 ! !20040401!20050331!043991108!043991108!009581091!N!COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION !3160 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE !FALLS CHURCH !VA!22042!38000!095!29!KANSAS CITY !JACKSON !MISSOURI !+000008249844!N!N!000000000000!D302!ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541511!E! !7! ! ! ! ! !99990909!C!E!Y!A! !D!N!Y!1!002! ! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !C!C!A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: KANSAS CITY, JACKSON County, MISSOURI, 64197

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.7 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INC. for work described as: 200409!000006!9700!HQ0425!DEF FIN & ACTG SVC, INDIANAPOLIS!MDA22002A0001 !A!N! !N!0006 ! !20040401!20050331!043991108!043991108!009581091!N!COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION !3160 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE !FALLS CHURCH !VA!22042!38000!095!29!KANSAS CITY !JACK… Key points: 1. Contract value of $14.7M for financial and accounting services. 2. Awarded to Computer Sciences Corporation, a major IT services provider. 3. Contract duration of one year, suggesting a need for ongoing support. 4. Services include ADP systems development, indicating a focus on IT infrastructure. 5. Competition level was 'Full and Open', implying a competitive bidding process. 6. The contract was a 'Delivery Order' under a larger indefinite-delivery contract. 7. The contract was awarded in 2004, providing historical context for current spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $14.7 million for a one-year period for ADP systems development services appears to be within a reasonable range for the scope of work. However, without specific benchmarks for 'Defense Finance and Accounting Service' IT support or comparable 'Custom Computer Programming Services' contracts from the same period, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The use of a Time and Materials pricing structure can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not closely managed, but it also offers flexibility for evolving project needs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a 'Full and Open Competition' mechanism, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data shows 3 bidders participated in this specific delivery order. A competitive process like this generally promotes price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition suggests that taxpayer dollars were likely used more efficiently by leveraging the competitive market to secure the best possible price and service.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its financial and accounting operations, ensuring the smooth functioning of critical financial systems. Services delivered include ADP systems development, crucial for modernizing and maintaining defense financial infrastructure. The geographic impact is centered around the Defense Finance and Accounting Service operations, likely supporting personnel and systems nationwide. Workforce implications include the need for skilled IT professionals to perform systems development and maintenance.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost creep due to Time and Materials pricing structure if not rigorously monitored.
Reliance on a single contractor (Computer Sciences Corporation) for a critical function could pose a risk if performance issues arise.
The contract's age (awarded in 2004) means current market rates and technologies may differ significantly, impacting the perceived value today.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
The contract was a delivery order, implying it was part of a pre-established framework likely designed for efficiency.
The contractor, Computer Sciences Corporation, is a large, established IT services firm with a significant presence in government contracting.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) and professional services sector, specifically focusing on custom computer programming and ADP systems development. The market for government IT services is substantial, with agencies like the Department of Defense being major consumers. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large IT development contracts within the DoD or other federal agencies during the mid-2000s, considering the specific nature of financial systems development.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. As a large contract awarded to a major IT services provider, it is unlikely to have directly benefited small businesses through a set-aside. However, the prime contractor may have utilized small businesses for subcontracting, though this information is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance metrics and deliverables outlined in the contract. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance reviews are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Finance and Accounting Service Operations
Department of Defense IT Modernization Programs
Custom Computer Programming Services Contracts
Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing.
Contract awarded in 2004; current market relevance and value may differ.
Limited detail on specific performance metrics and outcomes.
Reliance on a single large contractor for critical financial IT services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.7 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INC.. 200409!000006!9700!HQ0425!DEF FIN & ACTG SVC, INDIANAPOLIS!MDA22002A0001 !A!N! !N!0006 ! !20040401!20050331!043991108!043991108!009581091!N!COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION !3160 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE !FALLS CHURCH !VA!22042!38000!095!29!KANSAS CITY !JACKSON !MISSOURI !+000008249844!N!N!000000000000!D302!ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541511!E! !7! ! ! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Finance and Accounting Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-04-01. End: 2005-03-31.

What was the track record of Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) with the Department of Defense prior to and around the time of this award?

Prior to and around 2004, Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) was a significant player in the federal IT contracting space, including substantial work with the Department of Defense. CSC had a long history of providing a wide range of services, from systems integration and IT infrastructure management to software development and cybersecurity. They were frequently awarded large, complex contracts across various defense agencies. Their track record generally indicated a capacity to handle large-scale projects, though like any major contractor, they would have faced scrutiny regarding performance, cost control, and adherence to schedules on specific contracts. The DoD was a key client, and CSC's involvement in financial and accounting systems development, as seen in this contract, was a core competency.

How does the $14.7 million value compare to similar ADP systems development contracts within the DoD during the mid-2000s?

Comparing the $14.7 million value of this 2004-2005 contract for ADP systems development services requires context. During the mid-2000s, the Department of Defense was heavily invested in IT modernization and the development of complex systems to manage its vast operations. Large-scale projects, especially those involving financial systems, could easily run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over their lifecycle. A $14.7 million delivery order for a one-year period, while substantial, would likely be considered a moderate to significant component of a larger program. Benchmarking against specific, directly comparable contracts is difficult without access to detailed historical contract databases and scope definitions from that era. However, it aligns with the general scale of IT development and support services procured by the DoD at the time.

What were the primary risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for ADP systems development in the defense sector at that time?

The primary risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for ADP systems development in the defense sector during the mid-2000s revolved around cost control and contractor efficiency. T&M contracts pay the contractor for the actual labor hours and materials used. This structure offers flexibility, which can be beneficial for projects with evolving requirements or uncertain scopes. However, it places a significant burden on the government to closely monitor contractor effort and ensure that hours billed are reasonable and necessary. Without stringent oversight, there was a risk of cost overruns, as contractors might not be incentivized to complete tasks efficiently. For the DoD, managing T&M contracts required robust project management and auditing capabilities to prevent potential waste and ensure value for taxpayer money.

How effective were 'Full and Open Competition' strategies in ensuring competitive pricing for IT services like this within the DoD in the mid-2000s?

Full and Open Competition was the statutory preference for federal procurements, including IT services for the DoD, during the mid-2000s. The strategy aimed to maximize the pool of potential offerors, thereby fostering competition and driving down prices. For IT services, which often involve specialized skills and evolving technologies, this approach allowed a wide range of companies, from large system integrators to smaller niche providers, to compete. While generally effective in promoting price discovery and potentially achieving better value, the effectiveness could vary. Factors such as the complexity of the requirement, the availability of qualified bidders, and the clarity of the solicitation could influence the degree of competition realized. For a contract like this, involving ADP systems development, full and open competition was intended to ensure the DoD received competitive proposals.

What was the typical duration and funding model for similar ADP systems development contracts within DFAS or the broader DoD around 2004-2005?

Around 2004-2005, ADP systems development contracts within DFAS and the broader DoD often utilized a mix of contract types and durations. Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts were common, providing a framework for multiple delivery orders over several years. Delivery orders themselves, like the one in this case, could range from a few months to a year or more, depending on the specific task. Funding was typically appropriated annually, meaning that even multi-year contracts were subject to the availability of funds each fiscal year. Time and Materials (T&M) or Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) were common pricing structures, with T&M often used for development efforts where scope was less defined, and FFP for more clearly delineated tasks. The one-year duration of this specific delivery order was not unusual for a defined phase of development or support.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Custom Computer Programming Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Csra LLC

Address: 3170 FAIRVIEW PARK DR, FALLS CHURCH, VA, 22042

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: MDA22002A0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline