Department of Defense awarded $926.9M contract for integrated concepts and research services to Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,056,000 ($11.1M)

Contractor: Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-06-28

End Date: 2007-06-30

Contract Duration: 367 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: 200608!601186!2100!W912HZ!VICKSBURG CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTS!DACW4203D0003 !A!N! !N!0008 ! !20060628!20070630!926920703!926920703!078203361!N!INTEGRATED CONCEPTS AND RESEAR!1033 N FAIRFAX ST STE 400 !ALEXANDRIA !VA!22314!76720!049!51!SUNNYSIDE !CUMBERLAND !VIRGINIA !+000011670816!N!N!000000000000!D399!OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !541710!E! !5!B!S! ! !D!20070630!B!F!N!N!Z!B!U!J!1!001!N!5A!C!N!A! ! !N!A!N!N!F! ! ! !D!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! !96CE!W81EWF!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: VICKSBURG, WARREN County, MISSISSIPPI, 39180

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.1 million to INTEGRATED CONCEPTS AND RESEARCH CORPORATION for work described as: 200608!601186!2100!W912HZ!VICKSBURG CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTS!DACW4203D0003 !A!N! !N!0008 ! !20060628!20070630!926920703!926920703!078203361!N!INTEGRATED CONCEPTS AND RESEAR!1033 N FAIRFAX ST STE 400 !ALEXANDRIA !VA!22314!76720!049!51!SUNNYSIDE !CUMB… Key points: 1. The contract value of $926.9M represents a significant investment in research and development services. 2. The single award nature of this contract warrants scrutiny regarding competition and potential cost efficiencies. 3. The short performance period of approximately one year may indicate a need for rapid deployment or a pilot program. 4. The contract's focus on 'Other ADP & Telecommunication Services' places it within a critical and evolving technological sector. 5. The contractor's location in Alexandria, VA, suggests a proximity to federal decision-making centers.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $926.9M for a single year of 'Other ADP & Telecommunication Services' appears exceptionally high when compared to typical IT service contracts. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, but the sheer magnitude raises questions about the underlying cost structure and whether a more competitive process could have yielded better pricing for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' indicating a sole-source procurement. This means that only one contractor, Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation, was solicited. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or pricing structures, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple bids had been considered.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without a competitive process, there is less assurance that the government secured the best possible price for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, which receives integrated concepts and research services. The services delivered likely support advanced technological research and development initiatives within the military. The geographic impact is national, as research conducted could influence defense strategies across the country. Workforce implications may include specialized roles in research, development, and telecommunications within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced innovation.
The substantial contract value for a single year warrants detailed justification for its necessity and cost-effectiveness.
The broad category of 'Other ADP & Telecommunication Services' could mask specific needs that might be met more efficiently through specialized, competitive procurements.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded to a single entity, potentially allowing for focused expertise and streamlined execution.
The fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under the 'Other ADP & Telecommunication Services' category, which is a broad segment within the broader Information Technology sector. This sector is characterized by rapid innovation and significant government spending. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific service details, but large-scale R&D contracts in this area can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the scope and duration.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements in the provided data. As a sole-source award, the focus was likely on the capabilities of the prime contractor, Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation, rather than on distributing work to the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of Defense's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and deliverables. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the lack of publicly available detailed performance reports. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
Information Technology Services Contracts
Telecommunications Infrastructure Contracts
Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) Funding

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential cost overruns.
High contract value for a single year requires strong justification for necessity and efficiency.
Broad service category may obscure specific needs and limit performance evaluation.
Lack of public performance data hinders assessment of value for money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.1 million to INTEGRATED CONCEPTS AND RESEARCH CORPORATION. 200608!601186!2100!W912HZ!VICKSBURG CONSOLIDATED CONTRACTS!DACW4203D0003 !A!N! !N!0008 ! !20060628!20070630!926920703!926920703!078203361!N!INTEGRATED CONCEPTS AND RESEAR!1033 N FAIRFAX ST STE 400 !ALEXANDRIA !VA!22314!76720!049!51!SUNNYSIDE !CUMBERLAND !VIRGINIA !+000011670816!N!N!000000000000!D399!OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !541710!E! !5!B!S! ! !D!200

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INTEGRATED CONCEPTS AND RESEARCH CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-06-28. End: 2007-06-30.

What specific research and development services were procured under this contract?

The provided data categorizes the services as 'OTHER ADP & TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES' (PSC D399). This is a broad classification that encompasses a wide range of activities related to automated data processing and telecommunications. Without access to the contract's statement of work or detailed task orders, it is impossible to specify the exact nature of the integrated concepts and research services. These could range from developing new communication technologies, enhancing data processing capabilities, cybersecurity research, or strategic planning for future technological integration within the Department of Defense. The significant value suggests a project of substantial scope and importance.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION.' This typically occurs when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or is the only source capable of meeting the government's urgent requirements. Reasons can include national security concerns, the existence of a patent or copyright, or a lack of adequate competition. For a contract of this magnitude, a sole-source justification would likely involve a rigorous review process by the Department of Defense to ensure it was indeed the only viable option and that the public interest was served.

What is the track record of Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation with the federal government?

The provided data indicates Integrated Concepts and Research Corporation (ICRC) was awarded this specific contract. Further investigation into federal procurement databases would be necessary to ascertain ICRC's broader track record. This would involve examining past contracts, performance reviews (if publicly available), and any history of disputes or contract modifications. Without this additional context, it's difficult to assess their overall reliability, past performance quality, or experience with similar large-scale R&D projects.

How does the $926.9M contract value compare to similar government R&D or IT service contracts?

A contract value of $926.9 million for approximately one year of 'Other ADP & Telecommunication Services' is exceptionally high. While the Department of Defense does award large contracts for research and development, this figure stands out, particularly for a single year. Typical large-scale IT or R&D contracts can reach these values, but often span multiple years or involve highly specialized, cutting-edge research. The lack of competition further complicates direct comparison, as competitive bids often drive prices down. Benchmarking would require detailed analysis of contracts with similar scope, duration, and service classifications within the DoD.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award of this size?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude include potential overpricing due to the lack of competitive pressure, reduced incentive for innovation from the contractor, and the possibility that the government did not explore all available technological solutions or vendors. There's also a risk that the defined scope might not perfectly align with evolving needs, and modifications could become costly. Furthermore, the absence of a competitive process limits transparency and makes it harder to independently verify the value received for taxpayer dollars.

What is the significance of the contract's end date (June 30, 2007) and duration (367 days)?

The contract's end date of June 30, 2007, and a duration of 367 days indicate a project that was intended to be completed within roughly one fiscal year, concluding at the end of FY2007. This short, defined period suggests the contract may have been for a specific, time-bound research initiative, a pilot program, or a critical operational need that required immediate attention. It also implies that the government planned to re-evaluate requirements or seek competitive bids for subsequent phases or similar services after this period.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: VSE Corporation (UEI: 049997380)

Address: 1033 N FAIRFAX ST, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22314

Business Categories: Category Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DACW4203D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline