DoD's $28.2M Engineering Services Contract with Jacobs Technology Inc. Awarded in 2007, Completed in 2013

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,197,033 ($28.2M)

Contractor: Jacobs Technology Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-30

End Date: 2013-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,315 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CES II - TARIF ALASKA

Place of Performance

Location: RIDGECREST, KERN County, CALIFORNIA, 93555, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.2 million to JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC for work described as: CES II - TARIF ALASKA Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-award-fee structure incentivized performance but requires careful monitoring of award fee determinations. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these engineering services, potentially leading to better pricing. 3. The contract duration of over 6 years indicates a significant, long-term need for the services provided. 4. The absence of small business set-aside suggests the primary contractor is likely a large business, with potential subcontracting opportunities. 5. Performance was managed by the Department of the Navy, indicating a specific defense-related engineering requirement. 6. The contract was awarded under the 'CES II - TARIF ALASKA' program, suggesting a broader framework for similar services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without detailed performance metrics and award fee payouts. The cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) structure can lead to costs exceeding initial estimates if not managed tightly. Comparing it to similar engineering services contracts awarded around the same period would provide better context on pricing and overall value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. This competitive environment is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers. The number of bidders and the specific evaluation criteria would further illuminate the strength of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and encouraging a wider pool of qualified contractors to bid, potentially leading to cost savings.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Navy, benefited from specialized engineering services. Services likely supported naval infrastructure, systems, or operational requirements within Alaska. The contract's duration suggests a sustained impact on military readiness or facility maintenance. The workforce implications would involve engineers and technical specialists employed by Jacobs Technology Inc. and any subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee contracts if award criteria are not strictly managed.
Lack of transparency regarding specific award fee determinations could obscure true value for money.
Limited information on the specific engineering tasks performed makes it difficult to assess performance outcomes comprehensively.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process and potential for competitive pricing.
Long contract duration implies a sustained need and successful delivery of services over an extended period.
Managed by a major federal agency (DoD), indicating adherence to established procurement standards.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader professional services market supporting government operations. The market for engineering services is vast, encompassing design, consulting, and technical support across various industries. Federal spending in this area often supports infrastructure, defense, and research and development initiatives. Comparable spending benchmarks would require analysis of other large-scale engineering service contracts awarded by the DoD or other federal agencies during the contract's period of performance.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the 'sb' field is false, indicating that the primary award went to a large business. This suggests that subcontracting opportunities may have been available for small businesses, depending on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight was likely provided by the Department of the Navy contracting officers and technical representatives. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates robust oversight to ensure performance targets are met and award fees are justified. Transparency regarding the specific metrics used for award fee determination and the resulting payouts would enhance accountability.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services Contracts
Department of Defense Procurement
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts
Alaska-based Federal Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Potential (CPAF)
Performance Metric Clarity
Long-Term Contract Management
Geographic Specificity (Alaska)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.2 million to JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC. CES II - TARIF ALASKA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-30. End: 2013-09-30.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract?

While the contract falls under 'Engineering Services' (NAICS 541330), the specific nature of the services provided under 'CES II - TARIF ALASKA' is not detailed in the provided data. These services could range from architectural and engineering design, construction management, technical consulting, systems engineering, or support for specific military installations or projects within Alaska. The 'TARIF ALASKA' designation suggests a focus on requirements within that geographic region, potentially related to infrastructure, operational support, or environmental services relevant to the unique conditions in Alaska.

How did the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure impact the final cost compared to a fixed-price contract?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a fee that is composed of a base fee and an award amount. The award amount is based on the contractor's achievement of specific performance objectives. This structure incentivizes performance but can lead to higher final costs than fixed-price contracts if the contractor performs exceptionally well and earns significant award fees. Conversely, it provides flexibility for complex projects where scope may evolve. Without knowing the target costs, the actual costs, and the awarded fees, a precise comparison is difficult, but CPAF generally carries a higher cost risk for the government than fixed-price contracts.

What was the significance of the 'CES II - TARIF ALASKA' designation?

The 'CES II - TARIF ALASKA' designation likely refers to a specific Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicle or a program established by the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense. 'CES II' could stand for 'Contractor Engineering Support II' or a similar program name, indicating a second iteration or phase of such support. The 'TARIF ALASKA' part clearly denotes a geographic focus on requirements within the state of Alaska. Such program vehicles are often used to streamline procurement for recurring or geographically concentrated needs, allowing for task orders to be issued against a pre-competed master contract.

What is the typical performance risk associated with a contract of this duration and type?

Contracts with a duration of over six years (2315 days) inherently carry performance risks related to contractor stability, evolving technological requirements, and maintaining consistent quality over time. The CPAF structure, while incentivizing, also introduces risk if performance metrics are poorly defined or if the award fee determination process lacks objectivity. For engineering services, risks can include design errors, schedule delays, cost overruns, and failure to meet evolving technical specifications or environmental regulations, particularly in a challenging environment like Alaska.

How does the absence of small business participation impact potential subcontracting opportunities?

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses ('sb': false) and the prime contractor is likely a large entity given the contract value and nature. This typically means the prime contractor is responsible for meeting subcontracting goals as part of their contract. While not a direct small business award, it implies that opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors likely existed. The extent of this participation would depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan and execution, which is a key area for oversight to ensure small business utilization.

What does the 'AW' code 'DO' signify in the contract data?

The 'AW' code 'DO' typically signifies a 'Delivery Order' issued against a basic ordering agreement (BOA) or an IDIQ contract. In this context, it suggests that the 'CES II - TARIF ALASKA' might be a larger contract vehicle, and this specific entry represents a delivery order placed under that umbrella agreement. This method allows agencies to procure services or supplies efficiently by having pre-negotiated terms and conditions in place, with individual orders defining the specific scope, quantity, and price for a particular requirement.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc (UEI: 074103508)

Address: 1030 TITAN COURT, FORT WALTON BEACH, FL, 32547

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,197,033

Exercised Options: $28,197,033

Current Obligation: $28,197,033

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6893604D0019

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline