DoD's $15.5M IT Services Contract Awarded to ARTEL, INC. for Defense Information Systems Agency

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,547,130 ($15.5M)

Contractor: Artel, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-04-30

End Date: 2009-01-13

Contract Duration: 2,085 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22204

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.5 million to ARTEL, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 2085 days indicates a long-term need for IT services. 3. Awarded as a Time and Materials contract, which can pose cost control challenges. 4. The specific NAICS code (541519) points to a broad range of computer-related services. 5. The contract was awarded in 2003, with an end date in 2009, reflecting historical IT spending patterns. 6. The contractor, ARTEL, INC., has a track record with this specific award.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $15.5 million contract is challenging without more specific details on the services rendered and market rates at the time of award (2003). Time and Materials contracts, by nature, can lead to costs exceeding initial estimates if not closely managed. Comparing it to similar IT services contracts from that era would require access to historical pricing data for comparable scopes of work. The absence of a specific Product Service Code (PSC) further limits detailed value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The number of bids received (3) is relatively low for a full and open competition, which might suggest limited market interest or a highly specialized requirement. A low number of bidders can sometimes lead to less aggressive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process, even with a limited number of bidders, is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value. However, with only three bids, the potential for significant cost savings compared to a more crowded field might have been constrained.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the personnel within the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) who received IT support services. The contract facilitated the delivery of 'Other Computer Related Services,' crucial for the operational efficiency of the Department of Defense. The geographic impact is primarily within the operational areas served by DISA, likely supporting military and civilian personnel across various locations. Workforce implications include the potential for ARTEL, INC. to employ IT professionals to fulfill the contract requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
A low number of bids (3) in a full and open competition may indicate limited market engagement or potential for higher pricing.
The contract's age (awarded 2003) means current market rates and technology may differ significantly, impacting its relevance for future comparisons.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, adhering to principles of broad market access.
The contract duration suggests a stable, long-term requirement met by a single awardee.
The awardee, ARTEL, INC., has a documented history with this specific contract, indicating some level of established performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) sector, specifically under 'Other Computer Related Services.' The IT services market is vast and highly competitive, with significant government spending allocated to maintaining and upgrading complex defense systems. Contracts like this are essential for agencies like DISA to manage their technological infrastructure, which underpins national security operations. Benchmarking would involve comparing the service rates and overall cost to other government IT service contracts awarded during the mid-2000s.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits for the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The award went to ARTEL, INC., and the extent to which they utilized small business subcontractors is not detailed in this data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of Defense, likely through the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). Accountability measures would typically involve performance reviews, adherence to contract terms, and financial audits. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Defense Information Systems Agency IT Support Services
Department of Defense IT Services Contracts
Federal IT Services Procurement
Time and Materials IT Contracts
Computer Related Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Low number of bids for full and open competition
Time and Materials contract type carries cost overrun risk
Contract awarded over 15 years ago, limiting direct comparison to current market conditions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.5 million to ARTEL, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ARTEL, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-04-30. End: 2009-01-13.

What was the specific scope of 'Other Computer Related Services' provided under this contract?

The provided data identifies the NAICS code as 541519 ('Other Computer Related Services') and the Product Service Code (PSC) as '5415' (Information Technology Professional Services). However, the specific scope of work is not detailed. Typically, this category can encompass a wide range of services including IT consulting, systems integration, custom software development, IT support, network management, and cybersecurity services. For this particular contract with ARTEL, INC. for DISA, the services likely related to supporting the agency's complex IT infrastructure, potentially involving network operations, system maintenance, help desk support, or specialized IT project execution relevant to defense operations during the 2003-2009 period.

How did ARTEL, INC.'s performance on this contract compare to industry standards or other similar contracts at the time?

Assessing ARTEL, INC.'s performance on this specific $15.5 million contract (awarded 2003, ended 2009) relative to industry standards or other similar contracts is not possible with the provided data alone. Performance metrics, quality reviews, and user satisfaction data are typically documented in contract administration files, which are not included here. While the contract was awarded and completed, indicating a baseline level of acceptance, details regarding timeliness, quality of service, cost efficiency, and adherence to technical specifications would be needed for a comparative analysis. Without such records, we cannot definitively state how their performance stacked up against benchmarks or peer contracts from that era.

What were the primary risks associated with this Time and Materials contract, and how were they managed?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts, like this one, carry inherent risks primarily related to cost control. The government pays for the actual labor hours and materials used, which can lead to costs exceeding initial estimates if work is inefficiently performed or scope creep occurs without proper oversight. Key risks include potential for cost overruns, difficulty in predicting final costs, and contractor incentives that may not align with cost efficiency. Management of these risks typically involves establishing labor hour ceilings, setting material cost limits, requiring detailed record-keeping of hours and materials, implementing robust oversight by contracting officers' representatives (CORs), and conducting regular reviews of progress and expenditures to ensure the work remains within budget and scope.

Given the contract's award date (2003), what is its relevance for understanding current federal IT spending or contractor performance?

This contract, awarded in 2003 and ending in 2009, provides a historical snapshot of federal IT spending and contracting practices during the mid-2000s. Its relevance for understanding *current* federal IT spending is limited due to significant market evolution, technological advancements (e.g., cloud computing, AI), and changes in procurement strategies since then. However, it can offer insights into long-term contractor relationships (ARTEL, INC. held this for over 6 years), the prevalence of T&M contracts for IT services in that era, and the types of computer-related services deemed critical by the DoD at that time. It serves as a data point for historical trend analysis rather than a direct benchmark for contemporary IT procurement.

How does the number of bids (3) in a 'full and open competition' potentially impact price discovery and taxpayer value?

A 'full and open competition' is designed to maximize the number of potential bidders to foster robust price discovery and ensure the government receives the best possible value. Receiving only three bids in such a scenario can be a concern. It suggests that either the market for these specific services was limited, the requirements were highly specialized, or potential bidders were deterred by contract terms or other factors. With fewer competitors, the pressure to offer the lowest price is reduced, potentially leading to higher-than-optimal pricing for taxpayers. While three bidders still represent competition, a larger pool typically yields more competitive bids and a clearer understanding of fair market value.

Industry Classification

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

Address: 60421, CAMBRIDGE, OH, 12

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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DCA20000D5012

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline