Army's $10.4M engineering services contract awarded to Jacobs/Huitt-Zollars for Texas-based support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,418,260 ($10.4M)

Contractor: Jacobs/Huitt-Zollars, a Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-14

End Date: 2008-10-10

Contract Duration: 515 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FIELD SUPPORT PERSONNEL

Place of Performance

Location: EL PASO, EL PASO County, TEXAS, 79906

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.4 million to JACOBS/HUITT-ZOLLARS, A JOINT VENTURE for work described as: FIELD SUPPORT PERSONNEL Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in specialized engineering expertise. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for this award. 3. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty for the government. 4. Performance period of over a year indicates a substantial scope of work. 5. Geographic focus on Texas highlights regional infrastructure or operational needs. 6. The award falls within the broader category of engineering services for defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of approximately $10.4 million for engineering services appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering support contracts for the Department of the Army suggests this falls within expected spending ranges. The firm-fixed-price structure provides a degree of cost control, though the ultimate value is realized through efficient service delivery and avoidance of change orders. Without specific details on the services rendered, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the initial award amount is not an immediate red flag.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this engineering services requirement. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three offers generally provide a reasonable basis for price comparison and selection. The agency's decision to use full and open competition is a positive indicator for achieving fair market value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to more cost-effective solutions and better pricing for government services.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential engineering support. Services likely include design, planning, and technical consultation for military infrastructure or projects. The geographic impact is concentrated in Texas, supporting regional defense operations or facilities. The contract supports a specialized engineering workforce, potentially creating or sustaining jobs in the sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial requirements are not clearly defined.
Reliance on a single joint venture may limit future competitive options if performance issues arise.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability.
Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair market approach.
Contract duration allows for focused execution of engineering tasks.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector encompasses firms that provide specialized engineering expertise for a wide range of applications, including defense infrastructure, civil works, and industrial facilities. Spending in this area is often driven by government needs for complex project design, analysis, and oversight. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically look at the total federal outlays for engineering services across various agencies, which can run into billions annually.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a result, small businesses were not specifically targeted for this award. There is no direct information on subcontracting plans, but typically, larger prime contractors may engage small businesses for specialized support services. The absence of a small business set-aside means the primary focus was on obtaining the best overall value from the competitive field, rather than prioritizing small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is subject to standard federal procurement oversight mechanisms. As a firm-fixed-price contract awarded through full and open competition, oversight would focus on performance delivery, adherence to contract terms, and financial accountability. The Department of the Army's contracting officers and program managers are responsible for monitoring contractor performance. While specific Inspector General (IG) involvement isn't detailed, the IG's office generally has jurisdiction over potential fraud, waste, or abuse in federal contracts.

Related Government Programs

Military Construction
Base Operations Support
Architectural and Engineering Services
Defense Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope is not well-defined.
Risk of contractor performance issues impacting project timelines.
Dependence on a joint venture may limit future sourcing options.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.4 million to JACOBS/HUITT-ZOLLARS, A JOINT VENTURE. FIELD SUPPORT PERSONNEL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JACOBS/HUITT-ZOLLARS, A JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-14. End: 2008-10-10.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract?

The provided data identifies the contract as being for 'FIELD SUPPORT PERSONNEL' within the 'Engineering Services' category (NAICS 541330). While the specific nature of 'field support' is not detailed, it typically encompasses a range of technical and professional services required to support engineering projects or operations in the field. This could include on-site technical assistance, project management support, quality assurance, environmental assessments, surveying, or specialized engineering analysis directly related to Army installations or operations in Texas. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope of services was agreed upon at the time of award.

How does the $10.4 million award compare to typical spending for similar Army engineering contracts?

The $10.4 million award for engineering services is a substantial but not extraordinary amount for a Department of the Army contract of this nature. Federal agencies, particularly the DoD, frequently award contracts in the multi-million dollar range for specialized engineering support, especially for large-scale projects or extended operational requirements. Benchmarking requires comparing this to contracts with similar scopes (e.g., field support, project management, design) and durations (515 days). Without more granular data on the specific services and the number of personnel involved, a precise comparison is difficult. However, this value is consistent with the significant investments the Army makes in maintaining and developing its infrastructure and operational capabilities.

What are the key risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract?

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, especially for services, is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or scope to maximize profit if not adequately monitored. Conversely, if the government's requirements are not precisely defined or if unforeseen issues arise, the contractor may incur losses, potentially leading to disputes or requests for equitable adjustments. For the government, the risk lies in potentially overpaying if the contractor is highly efficient and the initial price was set conservatively, or underpaying if the contractor fails to deliver the expected quality or scope. Robust performance monitoring and clear contract administration are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What does the number of bidders (3) indicate about the competition for this contract?

Having three bidders for this engineering services contract suggests a moderate level of competition. While more bidders could potentially lead to lower prices, three offers generally provide a reasonable basis for the agency to assess price reasonableness and select a contractor. It indicates that the requirement was sufficiently defined and attractive enough to elicit interest from multiple firms capable of performing the work. A very low number of bidders (e.g., one or two) might raise concerns about market competitiveness or potential barriers to entry, while a very high number could indicate a highly commoditized service or intense market interest.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services by the Department of the Army?

The Department of the Army, as a major component of the Department of Defense, consistently spends significant amounts on engineering services annually. This spending supports a vast array of activities, including infrastructure design and maintenance, research and development facilities, environmental compliance, and specialized technical support for military operations. Historical data would likely show a trend of billions of dollars allocated to engineering and architectural services across various contract types and competition levels. The specific amount of $10.4 million for this single delivery order represents a small fraction of the Army's overall engineering budget, reflecting the scale of its operations and infrastructure needs.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Solicitation ID: W9126G06R0018

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 501 N BROADWAY, SAINT LOUIS, MO, 63102

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,418,260

Exercised Options: $10,418,260

Current Obligation: $10,418,260

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9126G06D0011

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline