DoD's $20M R&D contract with Odyssey Systems Consulting Group shows fair value despite limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,966,151 ($20.0M)

Contractor: Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-03-14

End Date: 2014-03-13

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: LABOR (CPFF)

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80912

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.0 million to ODYSSEY SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, LTD. for work described as: LABOR (CPFF) Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a deliberate decision to limit the initial pool. 2. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure suggests potential for cost overruns, though the fixed fee component provides some predictability. 3. Performance period of 4 years (1460 days) is standard for R&D projects of this nature. 4. The contract falls under R&D in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences, a critical sector for defense innovation. 5. The award to Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. represents a significant investment in specialized research capabilities. 6. The contract's value of approximately $20 million is moderate for a defense R&D effort.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without specific details on the R&D performed. However, the total award value of approximately $20 million over four years appears within a reasonable range for specialized research and development services within the Department of Defense. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common in R&D, carries inherent risks of cost escalation. Without comparative data on similar R&D projects' cost efficiency and outcomes, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult, but the price does not appear excessively high given the nature of the work.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This designation implies that while the initial solicitation was open, specific criteria or circumstances led to the exclusion of certain potential bidders before the final award. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'exclusion of sources' suggests a more curated selection process than a completely open bid. This approach can sometimes lead to less aggressive pricing compared to broad-based competition, as the pool of potential offerors is intentionally narrowed.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the most competitive pricing achievable through a wider bidding process. However, it could also indicate a focus on specialized expertise deemed essential for the project's success.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense, which receives advanced research and development services to enhance its capabilities. The contract supports the development of new technologies and scientific understanding within physical, engineering, and life sciences. Geographic impact is likely concentrated around the contractor's facilities and any research sites, with potential for broader defense application nationwide. Workforce implications include employment for scientists, engineers, and support staff involved in the R&D activities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
Limited competition may result in less favorable pricing for the government.
The specific nature of R&D can make performance metrics and success criteria difficult to define and measure upfront.

Positive Signals

Awarded under a full and open competition framework, suggesting a structured procurement process.
The contract supports critical research and development for national defense.
Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. is a known entity in government contracting, potentially indicating a level of established capability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences (NAICS 541712). This sector is crucial for defense innovation, driving advancements in areas like materials science, aerospace, cybersecurity, and biotechnology. The market for defense R&D is characterized by high specialization, long development cycles, and significant government investment. Comparable spending benchmarks for R&D contracts can vary widely based on the specific scientific domain and project scope, but contracts in the millions of dollars are common for specialized research efforts.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As such, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by a set-aside. The prime contractor, Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd., may engage small businesses as subcontractors based on project needs and their own procurement policies, but this is not a requirement stemming from this specific contract's award structure. The absence of a small business set-aside means larger, established firms were likely the primary focus of the competition.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring, financial reviews, and adherence to contract terms are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
Engineering and Scientific Services Contracts
Physical Sciences Research
Life Sciences Research
Department of the Army Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price discovery.
CPFF structure carries inherent cost overrun risk.
R&D success metrics can be inherently uncertain.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.0 million to ODYSSEY SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, LTD.. LABOR (CPFF)

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 Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-03-14. End: 2014-03-13.

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

Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. has a history of contracting with the Department of Defense, as indicated by this award. To fully assess their track record, a deeper dive into their past performance on similar R&D contracts would be necessary. This would involve examining the number of previous contracts, their values, the specific research areas involved, and any documented performance reviews or past performance evaluations. A review of contract databases and federal procurement records would reveal if they have consistently delivered on time and within budget, and if they have a history of successful R&D outcomes. Understanding their experience in the specific physical, engineering, or life sciences domain of this contract is crucial for evaluating their capability and reliability.

How does the pricing structure (CPFF) compare to other R&D contracts of similar scope and duration?

The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) structure is common for research and development contracts where the scope of work can evolve and precise costs are difficult to estimate upfront. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF offers more flexibility for the government if the R&D requirements change. However, it carries a higher risk of cost overruns than fixed-price arrangements. Benchmarking requires comparing the fixed fee percentage and the total cost of similar R&D projects. If the fixed fee here is within the typical range (often 10-15% of estimated costs) and the overall project cost is comparable to other R&D efforts of similar complexity and duration, the pricing could be considered reasonable. Without specific comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if it's optimal value.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this R&D contract, and how is success measured?

The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this R&D contract are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, R&D contracts define success through milestones such as the development of prototypes, successful testing of new technologies, delivery of research reports, achievement of specific scientific or engineering objectives, or the creation of intellectual property. Measurement often involves technical reviews, peer assessments, and demonstration of capabilities. The effectiveness of the R&D is judged by its contribution to the Department of Defense's mission objectives, its potential for future application, and its adherence to scientific rigor. The contracting officer and technical monitors would be responsible for overseeing progress against these defined KPIs throughout the contract's duration.

What is the historical spending trend for R&D contracts under NAICS code 541712 within the Department of the Army?

Historical spending trends for R&D contracts under NAICS code 541712 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)) within the Department of the Army are generally substantial, reflecting the Army's continuous need for technological advancement. While specific aggregate figures require access to comprehensive federal procurement databases, this sector consistently represents a significant portion of the Army's R&D budget. Spending in this area fluctuates based on strategic priorities, emerging threats, and technological opportunities. The Army often awards numerous contracts annually in this category, ranging from small, specialized research grants to large, multi-year development programs. Analyzing trends would involve looking at the total obligated amounts, the number of contracts awarded, and the average contract value over several fiscal years to identify patterns and areas of increased investment.

What is the potential risk associated with the 'Exclusion of Sources' aspect of the competition?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation introduces specific risks. While it implies that the initial solicitation was open, the subsequent exclusion of sources suggests a deliberate narrowing of the competitive field based on predefined criteria or circumstances. This can limit the number of viable bidders, potentially reducing the downward pressure on pricing that broader competition might achieve. It also raises questions about the justification for excluding certain sources – were they unqualified, or was there another strategic reason? If the exclusion was not based on clear, objective criteria, it could lead to perceptions of unfairness or a less-than-optimal selection of the most capable or cost-effective provider. The risk is that the government might not secure the best possible value due to a restricted marketplace.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W9126009R0002

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Subchapter S Corporation

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,109,032

Exercised Options: $21,109,032

Current Obligation: $19,966,151

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9126009D0004

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline