Booz Allen Hamilton awarded $598.8M GSA contract for engineering services over 5 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $598,763,971 ($598.8M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2018-08-28

End Date: 2023-09-09

Contract Duration: 1,838 days

Daily Burn Rate: $325.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF AWARDED ORDER.

Place of Performance

Location: ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, HARFORD County, MARYLAND, 21005

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $598.8 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF AWARDED ORDER. Key points: 1. Contract value represents significant investment in engineering support. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Contract type indicates a focus on performance-based outcomes. 4. Duration of the contract allows for long-term project engagement. 5. Geographic focus on Maryland highlights regional federal presence.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $598.8 million over approximately five years suggests a substantial investment. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering services contracts awarded by GSA or other agencies would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure implies that contractor performance directly influences the final profit, incentivizing efficiency and quality. Without specific performance metrics or comparisons to industry standards for similar services, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the scale indicates a significant, likely competitive, procurement.

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 two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this significant engineering services contract. While two bidders is better than a sole-source award, a higher number of bidders typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria would further illuminate the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition, even with two bidders, generally provides a better opportunity for taxpayers to receive competitive pricing compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios. This approach aims to ensure that the government is not overpaying for services.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring specialized engineering expertise will benefit from the services provided. The contract supports the delivery of critical engineering solutions for government projects. The primary geographic impact is within Maryland, aligning with federal installations or agency presence. The contract likely supports a workforce of engineers and technical specialists, contributing to employment in the sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee contracts if not managed diligently.
Dependence on a single contractor for a significant duration could pose risks if performance degrades.
Limited competition (two bidders) might not have yielded the absolute lowest price possible.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, maximizing potential for a wide range of qualified contractors.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes contractor performance and quality.
Long contract duration allows for continuity of essential engineering services.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services represent a critical sector supporting various government functions, from infrastructure development to defense systems. The market for federal engineering services is substantial, with agencies like GSA frequently procuring these capabilities. This contract fits within the broader category of professional services, where specialized expertise is paramount. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large engineering support contracts awarded across different federal agencies to gauge market rates and typical contract values.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements for this contract. As a large prime contract awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton, it is possible that subcontracting opportunities may exist for small businesses within the engineering services domain. However, without explicit set-aside clauses or reporting on subcontracting plans, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is not quantifiable from this data alone.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) typically has robust oversight mechanisms for its contracts, including performance monitoring and financial reviews. The Inspector General's office for GSA would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific performance details may be proprietary.

Related Government Programs

GSA Federal Acquisition Service Contracts
Engineering and Technical Services
Professional Services Contracts
Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Potential
Performance Measurement Challenges
Limited Competition Price Impact

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $598.8 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. IGF::OT::IGF AWARDED ORDER.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $598.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-08-28. End: 2023-09-09.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services by the General Services Administration?

The General Services Administration (GSA) consistently spends significant amounts on engineering and related professional services to support its vast portfolio of federal buildings, infrastructure, and technology initiatives. Historical data indicates a steady demand for these services, driven by the need for design, construction oversight, facility management, and modernization projects. While specific annual figures fluctuate based on agency priorities and budget allocations, GSA's commitment to procuring engineering expertise remains a core function. Analyzing trends over the past 5-10 years would reveal patterns in contract types (e.g., fixed-price, cost-reimbursable), competition levels, and average contract values, providing context for the $598.8 million awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton. This particular contract, awarded in 2018 and ending in 2023, falls within a period where federal spending on professional services remained robust.

How does the awarded amount compare to other large engineering contracts managed by GSA?

The $598.8 million awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton is a substantial sum, placing it among the larger engineering services contracts managed by the General Services Administration (GSA). GSA frequently awards multi-year, high-value contracts for architect-engineer (A-E) services, facility support, and program management. To benchmark this specific award, one would compare its total value and duration against other prime contracts for similar services issued within the last five years. For instance, contracts for major infrastructure design, large-scale facility renovations, or comprehensive program management support often reach hundreds of millions of dollars. The fact that this contract was competed suggests it aligns with GSA's strategy to leverage competitive processes for significant procurements, aiming for best value. Without direct access to GSA's internal contract databases or specific competitive analysis reports for this award, a precise comparison is limited, but the scale indicates a significant commitment to engineering support.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract of this magnitude?

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts, like the one awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton for $598.8 million, carry inherent risks primarily related to cost control and performance management. The 'cost-plus' component means the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs incurred, plus a fee that is a percentage of those costs. The 'award fee' portion introduces a performance incentive, where the contractor can earn additional fee based on meeting or exceeding specific performance objectives. The primary risk for the government is that the contractor may not have a strong incentive to control costs rigorously if the award fee criteria are not tightly defined or if performance metrics are subjective. This can lead to cost overruns beyond initial estimates. Additionally, defining and objectively measuring performance to justify award fees can be challenging, potentially leading to disputes or dissatisfaction. Effective oversight, clear performance standards, and diligent monitoring by the contracting officer are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure value for taxpayer money.

What is Booz Allen Hamilton's track record with large federal engineering contracts?

Booz Allen Hamilton is a well-established government contractor with extensive experience in providing a wide array of professional and technical services, including engineering, to various federal agencies. They have a long history of managing large, complex contracts, often valued in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Their track record includes significant work in defense, intelligence, civilian agencies, and technology modernization. For engineering services specifically, Booz Allen has been involved in projects ranging from systems engineering and integration to infrastructure support and cybersecurity engineering. While specific performance details for individual contracts are often not publicly disclosed in detail, their consistent ability to win and execute large federal contracts suggests a generally positive track record. However, like any large contractor, they may have faced scrutiny or challenges on specific projects, which would be detailed in performance evaluations or Inspector General reports if significant issues arose.

How does the competition level (2 bidders) impact price discovery for this contract?

A competition involving only two bidders, while technically 'full and open,' offers limited price discovery compared to scenarios with multiple, robust bids. With only two offers, the government's negotiating position is constrained. If one bidder has a significant advantage in terms of technical approach, past performance, or pricing structure, the other bidder may be less inclined to offer highly competitive pricing, knowing their chances are reduced. Conversely, if both bidders are closely matched, they might engage in more aggressive pricing to secure the award. However, the absence of a broader range of competitors means the government may not benefit from the full spectrum of market-driven price reductions that could occur with, for example, five or more bidders. This situation necessitates careful evaluation of the proposals and potentially strong negotiation tactics by the contracting officer to ensure the best possible value is achieved.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: GSC-QF0B-18-33153

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DR, MC LEAN, 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: $751,518,169

Exercised Options: $751,518,169

Current Obligation: $598,763,971

Actual Outlays: $-218,054

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 257

Total Subaward Amount: $66,847,949

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADU308

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline