DoD's $32.4M Army contract for tactical mission command field support awarded to MAG DS CORP

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,444,826 ($32.4M)

Contractor: MAG DS Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-03-31

End Date: 2015-09-30

Contract Duration: 548 days

Daily Burn Rate: $59.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::CL,CT::IGF THIS TASK ORDER IS FOR TACTICAL MISSION COMMAND'S FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES.

Place of Performance

Location: TINTON FALLS, MONMOUTH County, NEW JERSEY, 07724

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $32.4 million to MAG DS CORP for work described as: IGF::CL,CT::IGF THIS TASK ORDER IS FOR TACTICAL MISSION COMMAND'S FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES. Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in tactical mission command capabilities. 2. MAG DS CORP, the contractor, has been awarded this task order under a broader contract. 3. The contract duration of 548 days suggests a medium-term support requirement. 4. The 'Engineering Services' NAICS code indicates a focus on technical and design support. 5. The contract was awarded using full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process. 6. The cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing structure allows for cost reimbursement plus a predetermined profit.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific task order is challenging without more context on the scope of 'Field Support Services' for Tactical Mission Command. The total award amount of $32.4 million over approximately 18 months suggests a substantial but not exceptionally high per-month expenditure. Comparing it to similar engineering services contracts for military support would be necessary for a more precise value assessment. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure means that while the contractor's costs are reimbursed, the fixed fee provides a predictable profit margin, which can sometimes lead to less aggressive cost control compared to fixed-price contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 4 bidders (no=4) suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific task order. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing taxpayer value, the actual level of competition and its impact on pricing depend on the number of responsive bids received and the specific requirements of the task.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple companies to bid, which can drive down prices and improve the quality of services offered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army units requiring tactical mission command field support. Services delivered likely include technical assistance, maintenance, and operational support for command systems. The geographic impact is focused on the operational areas where Army units are deployed. Workforce implications include employment for engineers, technicians, and support staff employed by MAG DS CORP and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can incentivize higher spending if not closely monitored, as costs are reimbursed.
The specific scope of 'Field Support Services' is broad and may require detailed oversight to ensure efficient resource utilization.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
The fixed fee component of the contract provides a defined profit margin for the contractor.

Sector Analysis

The defense engineering services sector is characterized by complex requirements, long-term contracts, and significant government oversight. This contract for tactical mission command field support fits within the broader IT and engineering services market supporting military operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other Army or DoD contracts for similar field support or system integration services, which often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the scale and duration.

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 with the prime contractor, MAG DS CORP. The extent of this subcontracting is not detailed in the provided information, but it represents a potential avenue for small businesses to engage in supporting defense contracts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would include performance reviews, milestone tracking, and adherence to the cost-plus-fixed-fee terms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific operational details might be sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Tactical Mission Command Systems
Army Field Support Contracts
Defense Engineering Services
Command and Control Systems Support

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF structure
Scope definition for 'Field Support Services' requires clear definition and monitoring

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $32.4 million to MAG DS CORP. IGF::CL,CT::IGF THIS TASK ORDER IS FOR TACTICAL MISSION COMMAND'S FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MAG DS CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $32.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-03-31. End: 2015-09-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for Tactical Mission Command Field Support services within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending for Tactical Mission Command Field Support requires a deep dive into the Army's procurement data over several fiscal years. This would involve identifying contracts with similar scopes of work, such as 'field support,' 'engineering services,' 'command and control systems,' and 'tactical systems.' Trends might reveal an increasing or decreasing reliance on external contractors for these services, shifts in technology adoption, and fluctuations in contract values due to operational tempo or budget cycles. For instance, periods of heightened global conflict might correlate with increased spending on field support to maintain readiness. Conversely, modernization efforts could lead to shifts towards different types of support contracts. Without specific historical data for this exact service category, it's difficult to provide precise figures, but the general trend in defense spending often reflects geopolitical events and technological advancements.

How does the per-diem or hourly rate for personnel on this contract compare to market rates for similar engineering services?

Determining the precise per-diem or hourly rates for personnel on this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract requires access to the detailed cost breakdown within the contract itself, which is not publicly available in the provided summary. CPFF contracts reimburse the contractor for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. To benchmark these rates against the market, one would need to identify the specific labor categories (e.g., senior engineer, field technician) and their associated costs (salaries, benefits, overhead) as reported by the contractor. These would then be compared to industry salary surveys and rates for comparable engineering services in the relevant geographic locations (New Jersey, in this case, as indicated by 'ST': 'NJ'). Factors like security clearances, specialized skills, and the demanding nature of military field support can justify rates above standard commercial levels, but significant deviations would warrant scrutiny.

What is MAG DS CORP's track record with similar Department of Defense contracts, particularly in field support?

MAG DS CORP's track record with similar Department of Defense contracts, especially in field support, is crucial for assessing performance risk. A review of their contract history would reveal past performance evaluations, any instances of contract disputes, timely delivery, and overall quality of service on previous engagements. Specifically looking for contracts related to tactical systems, command and control, or field engineering support would provide the most relevant insights. Positive past performance indicators would include consistent high ratings, successful completion of complex projects, and a history of meeting or exceeding contract requirements. Conversely, negative indicators such as performance-related terminations, significant delays, or documented quality issues would raise concerns about their ability to successfully execute this current task order. Accessing the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) or similar databases would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this field support contract?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a contract like this, focused on Tactical Mission Command Field Support, are designed to ensure operational readiness and system effectiveness. While specific KPIs are defined within the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS), common examples include: Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF) for supported systems, Mean Time To Repair (MTTR), system availability rates (uptime percentage), response times for field service requests, successful completion rates for scheduled maintenance, and adherence to operational tempo requirements. Customer satisfaction surveys from the supported Army units would also likely be a KPI. The effectiveness of the contractor's support directly impacts the warfighter's ability to command and control forces, making these KPIs critical for mission success and value for money.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) influence cost control and potential for cost overruns compared to other contract types?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure inherently carries a higher risk of cost overruns compared to fixed-price contracts. In a CPFF arrangement, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee that represents their profit. While the fixed fee provides a ceiling on profit, it does not limit the total contract cost. This means the government bears the risk of cost increases due to unforeseen circumstances, scope creep, or inefficiencies. Effective cost control relies heavily on robust government oversight, detailed cost monitoring, and stringent auditing of contractor expenses. If oversight is weak, contractors may have less incentive to aggressively control costs, as they are assured their expenses will be reimbursed and their profit margin maintained. Fixed-price contracts, conversely, place the cost risk on the contractor, incentivizing them to manage expenses tightly to maximize profit.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 804C W PARK AVE, OCEAN, NJ, 07712

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $52,161,823

Exercised Options: $39,771,839

Current Obligation: $32,444,826

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 4

Total Subaward Amount: $18,671,907

Contract Characteristics

Consolidated Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T10DD421

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline