DoD's $31.1M R&D contract with Odyssey Systems Consulting Group shows strong competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,141,899 ($31.1M)

Contractor: Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-01-31

End Date: 2013-04-17

Contract Duration: 1,903 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: R&D

Official Description: PASS IDIQ

Place of Performance

Location: WAKEFIELD, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01880

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.1 million to ODYSSEY SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, LTD. for work described as: PASS IDIQ Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process. 2. Research and Development sector spending benchmarked against similar contracts. 3. Performance period of 1903 days suggests a long-term commitment to R&D objectives. 4. Contract type (Delivery Order) implies specific task orders against a larger IDIQ. 5. Focus on physical, engineering, and life sciences R&D aligns with critical defense needs. 6. No small business set-aside noted, suggesting focus on large prime contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total award value of $31.1 million over its period of performance appears reasonable for specialized R&D services. Benchmarking against similar R&D contracts within the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The use of labor hours suggests flexibility in resource allocation, which can be cost-effective for evolving research projects. However, without detailed task order breakdowns, a granular cost analysis is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which typically means the initial solicitation was broad, but specific sources were later excluded based on defined criteria. The presence of full and open competition suggests that multiple bidders were likely considered, leading to competitive pricing. The number of bidders is not specified, but the process itself implies a degree of market engagement.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and ensuring the government receives the best value for its investment in research and development.

Public Impact

Benefits the Department of Defense by advancing physical, engineering, and life sciences research. Supports innovation and technological development crucial for national security. Potential for workforce implications in specialized R&D fields. Geographic impact is likely concentrated around research facilities and contractor locations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the direct impact of the R&D.
The exclusion of sources, even within a full and open framework, warrants scrutiny for fairness.
Long contract duration could lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a competitive process, suggesting potential for good value.
Focus on critical R&D areas aligns with strategic defense priorities.
Delivery Order structure allows for phased funding and adaptation to research needs.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically NAICS code 541710. This sector is characterized by innovation and the pursuit of new knowledge and applications. Spending in this area by the DoD is substantial, often focused on areas like advanced materials, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and aerospace technologies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other R&D contracts awarded by defense agencies for similar scientific disciplines.

Small Business Impact

The contract does not indicate any small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary award was made to a large business, Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. While there are no direct subcontracting requirements specified here, large prime contractors are often encouraged or required to subcontract portions of their work to small businesses. The absence of a set-aside means small businesses would have had to compete directly or through subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program managers within the Department of the Air Force. Accountability measures would be tied to the delivery orders issued against the IDIQ contract, focusing on milestones, deliverables, and adherence to technical specifications. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific R&D details might be sensitive.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Programs
Air Force Science and Technology Investments
Advanced Technology Development Contracts
IDIQ Contract Vehicles

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep in R&D projects.
Risk of technology obsolescence.
Dependency on contractor's specialized expertise.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.1 million to ODYSSEY SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, LTD.. PASS IDIQ

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ODYSSEY SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, LTD..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-01-31. End: 2013-04-17.

What is the track record of Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. with federal contracts, particularly within R&D?

Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. has a history of securing federal contracts, primarily within the defense sector. Their experience often involves providing professional services, technical support, and program management. While specific details on their R&D project success rates require deeper analysis of past performance reviews and contract close-outs, their consistent award of contracts suggests a satisfactory performance history. Further investigation into their specific R&D contributions and client feedback would offer a more comprehensive view of their capabilities and reliability in this specialized field.

How does the $31.1 million award compare to similar R&D contracts in the physical, engineering, and life sciences sectors?

The $31.1 million award for R&D in physical, engineering, and life sciences is a moderate-sized contract within the DoD's extensive R&D portfolio. Larger contracts in these fields can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, often supporting major technological advancements or long-term research initiatives. Smaller contracts might focus on specific, niche research questions or feasibility studies. This contract's value suggests a significant but not necessarily groundbreaking project, likely involving a dedicated team over several years. A precise comparison would necessitate analyzing contracts with similar NAICS codes (541710) and agency focus (DoD) awarded within a comparable timeframe.

What are the primary risks associated with this type of R&D contract?

Key risks for this R&D contract include technical uncertainty, where the research outcomes may not be as expected or achievable within the planned scope and budget. Schedule delays are common in R&D due to unforeseen scientific challenges or resource constraints. Cost overruns are also a risk, especially if the project scope expands or research proves more complex than initially estimated. Contractor performance risk exists, though mitigated by competitive selection; ensuring the contractor maintains qualified personnel and effective project management is crucial. Finally, the risk of the developed technology becoming obsolete before deployment or failing to meet evolving operational requirements is inherent in long-term R&D.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method in ensuring value for taxpayers?

This contracting method aims to balance broad market access with specific needs. 'Full and Open Competition' initially allows any interested source to submit an offer, fostering a wide range of potential solutions and competitive pricing. The subsequent 'Exclusion of Sources' implies that after initial submissions or market research, certain sources were deemed ineligible based on predefined criteria (e.g., security, capability, past performance). While this can streamline the process by focusing on qualified vendors, it carries a risk of inadvertently limiting competition if the exclusion criteria are too restrictive or subjective. When applied appropriately, it can ensure value by selecting the best-qualified offeror from a competitive pool, but transparency in the exclusion rationale is key for taxpayer assurance.

What is the historical spending trend for R&D contracts under the Department of Defense, and how does this contract fit?

The Department of Defense consistently represents one of the largest government spenders on Research and Development, reflecting its mission to maintain technological superiority. Historical spending trends show a significant and often increasing allocation towards R&D, driven by evolving global threats and the rapid pace of technological change. This $31.1 million contract fits within this broader trend as a specific investment in advancing capabilities within the physical, engineering, and life sciences. It represents a single data point within a much larger ecosystem of defense R&D funding, contributing to the overall innovation pipeline that supports military readiness and future force development.

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) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 201 EDGEWATER DR STE 270, WAKEFIELD, MA, 01880

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $159,185,244

Exercised Options: $56,029,271

Current Obligation: $31,141,899

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA872107D0005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline