Guidehouse LLP awarded $207M contract for program management support by the Department of State

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $207,413,068 ($207.4M)

Contractor: Guidehouse LLP

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2020-08-26

End Date: 2027-02-25

Contract Duration: 2,374 days

Daily Burn Rate: $87.4K/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: AWARD THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICE BODY SHOP CALL ORDER TO GUIDEHOUSE, LLP.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20520

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $207.4 million to GUIDEHOUSE LLP for work described as: AWARD THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICE BODY SHOP CALL ORDER TO GUIDEHOUSE, LLP. Key points: 1. The contract was competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), suggesting a focus on smaller value procurements. 2. The Time and Materials (T&M) contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns if not closely managed. 3. The duration of the contract (over 2 years) indicates a need for sustained support services. 4. The award to Guidehouse LLP, a known consulting firm, suggests a reliance on established expertise. 5. The contract is for administrative management and general management consulting services, a broad category. 6. The geographic location of the awardee is Washington D.C.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific BPA Call against similar contracts is challenging without more detailed scope information. However, the total award amount of over $207 million over approximately 2.5 years suggests a significant investment in program management support. The Time and Materials pricing model, while flexible, can lead to higher costs if not managed diligently, making direct value-for-money assessment difficult without performance metrics and labor rate analysis. Compared to other large-scale consulting engagements, the per-year cost appears within a reasonable range for specialized program management.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was competed under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), which typically allows for a broader range of competition than micro-purchases but may not always reach the full breadth of the market as a full and open competition under FAR Part 15. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but SAP is designed to encourage competition for procurements below certain thresholds. This method aims to balance efficiency with fair opportunity.

Taxpayer Impact: Competing under SAP generally promotes price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for taxpayers compared to sole-source awards. However, the extent of taxpayer savings depends on the number of responsive bids received and the effectiveness of the evaluation process.

Public Impact

The Department of State benefits from enhanced program management capabilities, potentially leading to more efficient and effective execution of its initiatives. Services delivered include administrative management and general management consulting, supporting various departmental programs. The primary geographic impact is within Washington D.C., where the contractor is located and likely where services are primarily rendered. The contract supports a workforce of consultants providing specialized expertise to the government.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials (T&M) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored and managed.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the true value and effectiveness of the services.
The broad nature of 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' could lead to scope creep if not clearly defined and controlled.

Positive Signals

Awarded to a known entity (Guidehouse LLP) with presumed expertise in management consulting.
The contract was competed, indicating an effort to secure competitive pricing.
The multi-year duration suggests a stable, ongoing need for these critical support services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically management and administrative consulting. This sector is characterized by a wide range of firms, from large global consultancies to smaller niche providers. Government spending in this area is substantial, supporting a variety of functions from strategic planning to operational efficiency. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large federal contracts for program management support across various agencies, often measured by total contract value or annual spending.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a result, large businesses like Guidehouse LLP were eligible to compete and were awarded the contract. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award notice. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless specific subcontracting opportunities arise.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of State's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract's performance work statement and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Program Management Support Services
Management and Consulting Services
Federal IT Consulting Contracts
Department of State Administrative Support

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials contract type.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Broad scope of services could lead to scope creep.
Competition level under SAP may not be as robust as full and open competition for large value contracts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $207.4 million to GUIDEHOUSE LLP. AWARD THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICE BODY SHOP CALL ORDER TO GUIDEHOUSE, LLP.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GUIDEHOUSE LLP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $207.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-08-26. End: 2027-02-25.

What is Guidehouse LLP's track record with the Department of State and other federal agencies for similar services?

Guidehouse LLP has a significant track record of performing management consulting and administrative support services for various federal agencies, including the Department of State. Their past performance often includes work related to program management, financial management, and operational improvements. Analyzing their specific award history, past performance evaluations, and any reported issues with previous contracts would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and capability for this specific award. A review of publicly available contract data (e.g., FPDS) can reveal the volume and nature of their federal awards, including the value and duration of prior engagements with the Department of State.

How does the awarded amount compare to similar program management support contracts within the Department of State or other agencies?

The total award of approximately $207 million over roughly 2.5 years places this contract in the category of significant federal support service agreements. To benchmark effectively, one would compare this to other large-scale program management support contracts awarded by agencies of similar size and mission, such as the Department of Defense or HHS. Key comparison points include the average annual value, the specific services procured (e.g., IT program management vs. general administrative), and the contract type (e.g., FFP vs. T&M). Without more granular data on the scope of work and specific deliverables, a precise comparison is difficult, but the overall value suggests a substantial requirement.

What are the primary risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for program management support?

The primary risk with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for program management support is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike Fixed-Price contracts, T&M agreements reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours at specified rates and for the cost of materials. If the scope of work is not tightly controlled, or if the contractor's efficiency is low, labor hours can escalate, driving up the total cost significantly beyond initial estimates. This necessitates robust government oversight, including detailed monitoring of labor hours, verification of work performed, and strong negotiation of labor rates to ensure fair pricing and prevent contractor inefficiency from being passed on to the government.

How effective is the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) in ensuring competitive pricing for this type of service?

Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) are designed to streamline the procurement process for acquisitions valued below certain thresholds (currently $250,000, but specific agency policies and contract types can influence applicability). While SAP aims to increase efficiency and encourage competition among a wider range of vendors, including small businesses, its effectiveness in ensuring optimal competitive pricing for a contract potentially valued at $207 million depends heavily on how it was implemented. If this was a single BPA Call against a pre-competed BPA, the competition might have occurred at the BPA level. However, if it was competed solely under SAP for this specific call order, the number of bidders and the specific solicitation strategy would determine the level of price competition achieved. Generally, broader competition leads to better pricing.

What is the historical spending trend for administrative management and general management consulting services at the Department of State?

Historical spending data for administrative management and general management consulting services at the Department of State would reveal trends in the agency's reliance on external expertise for these functions. Analyzing past years' obligations for NAICS code 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) would indicate whether spending in this category has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. Such analysis could also highlight major contract awards, shifts in procurement strategies (e.g., from sole-source to competed), and the primary contractors utilized. This context helps assess if the current $207 million award represents a significant increase or a continuation of established spending patterns.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Solicitation ID: 19AQMM20R0198

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C.

Address: 1676 INTERNATIONAL DR STE 800, MCLEAN, VA, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $318,702,782

Exercised Options: $295,813,451

Current Obligation: $207,413,068

Actual Outlays: $31,774,490

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 19AQMM19A0281

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline