DoD's $18.9M contract for engineering services awarded to Morgan Research Corporation shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,589,647 ($13.6M)

Contractor: CGI Federal Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-09-26

End Date: 2011-01-06

Contract Duration: 1,928 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: 200512!005701!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0030 !A!N! !Y!0014 ! !20050926!20051231!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811-A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000000759389!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !B1 !BUILDING SUPPLIES !000 !* !541710!E! !7! ! ! ! ! !20200930!C! ! !N!Z!A!N!J!2!002! ! !Z!N!Z! ! !Y!A!N!N!Z! ! ! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.6 million to CGI FEDERAL INC. for work described as: 200512!005701!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0030 !A!N! !Y!0014 ! !20050926!20051231!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811-A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADI… Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its duration and scope, warranting further investigation into cost-effectiveness. 2. Limited public information makes it difficult to assess the competitive landscape and its impact on pricing. 3. The contract's performance period spans over 6 years, indicating a long-term commitment that requires ongoing scrutiny. 4. The services procured fall under R&D, a sector often characterized by complex deliverables and variable outcomes. 5. The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting an intention for broad market participation. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags raises questions about opportunities for smaller enterprises in this procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total value of $18.9 million over approximately 6 years suggests an average annual spend of around $3.15 million. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, it is challenging to benchmark this against similar contracts. The fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, but the overall value proposition needs further analysis to ensure it represents good value for money, especially given the extended performance period.

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 offers. The data indicates there were 3 bidders, which suggests a moderate level of competition. While competition is generally positive for price discovery, the specific details of the bidding process and the number of proposals received would provide a clearer picture of the competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process, even with a moderate number of bidders, is generally favorable for taxpayers as it tends to drive down prices and encourage efficiency.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Army, which receives engineering technical services. These services are crucial for supporting aviation and missile command operations. The contract's geographic impact is centered around Huntsville, Alabama, where the contractor is located. The contract supports specialized technical roles within the engineering and R&D sectors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for all project complexities.
Risk of contractor performance issues over the long contract duration, potentially impacting critical R&D timelines.
Limited transparency into the specific technical requirements and performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
Fixed-price contract structure shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Contract duration of over 6 years allows for sustained support and development.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences sector (NAICS code 541710). This sector is characterized by innovation and the development of new technologies. Spending in this area by the Department of Defense is substantial, supporting advancements in military capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within specific defense R&D program portfolios.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem, though the absence of a set-aside suggests larger businesses were likely the primary focus of this procurement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is limited by the proprietary nature of R&D contracts, but contract award data is publicly available through federal procurement databases.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
Army Aviation and Missile Command Procurement
Engineering and Technical Services Contracts
Federal R&D Spending

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of scope creep or performance degradation.
Limited transparency on specific deliverables hinders value-for-money assessment.
Potential for cost inefficiencies if fixed-price model doesn't fully capture R&D complexities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.6 million to CGI FEDERAL INC.. 200512!005701!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0030 !A!N! !Y!0014 ! !20050926!20051231!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811-A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000000759389!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !B1 !BUILDING SUPPLIES !000 !* !541710!E! !7! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CGI FEDERAL INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-26. End: 2011-01-06.

What specific engineering technical services were provided under this contract, and how were they critical to the Army Aviation and Missile Command's mission?

The contract, identified by award number W31P4Q05A0030, was for 'ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES'. While the specific nature of these services is not detailed in the provided data, they are generally understood to encompass a broad range of technical support crucial for the development, testing, sustainment, and modernization of aviation and missile systems. This could include areas like systems engineering, software development, test and evaluation, logistics support analysis, and technical documentation. The criticality lies in ensuring the operational readiness and technological superiority of the Army's aviation and missile assets, which are vital for national defense.

How does the $18.9 million contract value compare to similar engineering technical services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

Benchmarking this $18.9 million contract requires detailed comparison with contracts for similar scope, duration, and technical complexity within the Department of Defense. Without specific service details, it's challenging. However, for a contract spanning over six years (from September 2005 to January 2011), an average annual value of approximately $3.15 million is not inherently excessive for specialized R&D and engineering support. Factors like the level of technical expertise required, the criticality of the systems supported, and the specific deliverables would influence comparability. A deeper dive into contract databases, filtering by service type (e.g., systems engineering, technical support) and agency, would be necessary for a robust comparison.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate Morgan Research Corporation's performance under this contract?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate Morgan Research Corporation's performance. For fixed-price contracts, performance is typically assessed against the defined scope of work, delivery schedules, and quality standards outlined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW). Government contract officers and technical representatives would monitor adherence to these terms. Without access to the SOW or performance reports, a detailed assessment of performance quality and effectiveness is not possible from this data alone.

What is the historical spending trend for engineering technical services by the Army Aviation and Missile Command over the past decade?

The provided data pertains to a single contract awarded in 2005. To analyze historical spending trends for engineering technical services by the Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), a broader dataset encompassing multiple years and contracts would be required. This would involve querying federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending) for AMCOM's spending on relevant NAICS codes (e.g., 541710, 541330) over a significant period. Such an analysis would reveal patterns, identify major contractors, and highlight fluctuations in spending based on program priorities and budget allocations.

Were there any identified risks or challenges associated with Morgan Research Corporation's track record prior to or during the award of this contract?

The provided data does not contain information regarding Morgan Research Corporation's track record, past performance evaluations, or any specific risks or challenges identified prior to or during the award of this contract. Federal procurement processes typically include reviews of past performance as part of the source selection criteria. However, this specific data extract does not detail those assessments. To determine potential risks associated with the contractor's history, one would need to consult sources like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other agency-specific performance databases.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CGI Inc (UEI: 248513116)

Address: 12601 FAIR LAKES CIR, FAIRFAX, VA, 22033

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

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W31P4Q05A0030

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline