Booz Allen Hamilton awarded $497M engineering services contract by GSA, spanning over two years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $497,059,053 ($497.1M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2019-07-22

End Date: 2025-04-30

Contract Duration: 2,109 days

Daily Burn Rate: $235.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: AWARD TASK ORDER.

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $497.1 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: AWARD TASK ORDER. Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in engineering services, requiring careful performance monitoring. 2. The full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to favorable pricing. 3. Contract duration of 2109 days indicates a long-term need for these engineering services. 4. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure incentivizes performance but requires robust oversight to manage costs. 5. This award falls within the broader category of professional services, a key area of federal spending. 6. The specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to a focus on engineering consulting.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The award amount of $497 million for engineering services is substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering contracts within the federal government is crucial for assessing value. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) pricing structure, while common for complex services, necessitates diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and aligned with performance objectives. Without specific comparable contract data, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the scale suggests a significant need and potential for economies of scale if managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and innovation. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific award, though the exact number of bidders in a full and open competition can vary widely. The outcome of such a competition is typically a more market-driven price.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of securing services at a fair market price, preventing potential overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies requiring specialized engineering expertise to support various projects and initiatives. Services delivered likely encompass a wide range of engineering disciplines, including design, analysis, and consulting. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, supporting federal projects across different regions. The contract supports highly skilled engineering professionals, contributing to the federal workforce in technical fields.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed with strict oversight and performance metrics.
The long contract duration (2109 days) may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing technological needs or market conditions.
Reliance on a single large contractor for extensive engineering services could create vendor lock-in.

Positive Signals

Awarding under full and open competition suggests a robust process that likely yielded competitive pricing.
The significant contract value indicates a high level of trust and perceived capability in the awarded contractor.
The contract's focus on engineering services addresses critical federal needs in technical domains.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services represent a critical sector within the federal procurement landscape, encompassing a wide array of specialized technical expertise. This contract, valued at approximately $497 million, falls under the professional, scientific, and technical services category. The market for federal engineering services is substantial, with agencies across all branches relying on these capabilities for infrastructure, defense, research, and development. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale engineering support contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, and GSA itself to assess the relative scale and pricing.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, there is no specific information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The absence of set-aside provisions means that large businesses were the primary focus of this competition. This could limit opportunities for small businesses to participate directly in this significant federal contract, although they might be involved as subcontractors if the prime contractor implements a subcontracting plan.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract is critical. The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for administering the contract and ensuring performance meets the required standards. The CPAF structure implies that performance metrics and award fee evaluations will be key components of oversight. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports and cost justifications may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would typically fall under the agency awarding and managing the contract, in this case, GSA.

Related Government Programs

Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Engineering and Architectural Services
Management and Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Long contract duration may pose risks related to technological obsolescence and market shifts.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to the scale and duration of the contract.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $497.1 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. AWARD TASK 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 $497.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-07-22. End: 2025-04-30.

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

The General Services Administration (GSA) consistently awards significant contracts for engineering and related professional services. Historically, GSA has managed a large portfolio of contracts supporting federal real estate, infrastructure, and technology initiatives. Spending in this category often fluctuates based on major infrastructure projects, modernization efforts, and evolving federal requirements. Analyzing GSA's historical spending data for NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services) and similar codes would reveal trends in contract values, types (e.g., IDIQ, task orders), and the distribution of awards among large and small businesses. This specific $497 million award represents a substantial single contract, and understanding its place within GSA's broader spending on engineering services requires examining annual procurement reports and budget allocations over several fiscal years to identify patterns of investment and priorities.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure typically impact contractor performance and cost control for engineering services?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure is designed to incentivize high performance by allowing the contractor to earn a base fee plus an award fee based on achieving specific performance objectives. For engineering services, this means the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs and can receive additional profit (the award fee) if they exceed performance expectations set by the government. This structure can be effective in driving quality and innovation, especially for complex projects where outcomes are not easily defined upfront. However, it also requires robust government oversight to establish clear, measurable performance criteria and to objectively evaluate the contractor's performance to determine the award fee. Without stringent oversight, there's a risk that costs could escalate, or the award fee might be granted too liberally, diminishing the cost-control benefits for taxpayers.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-duration contract (2109 days) for engineering services?

A long-duration contract, such as this 2109-day award, presents several potential risks for engineering services. Firstly, technological advancements can rapidly outpace the services defined at the contract's outset, potentially rendering some aspects of the contract obsolete or requiring costly modifications. Secondly, market conditions and the availability of specialized skills can change significantly over such a long period, impacting the contractor's ability to deliver services at the initially agreed-upon terms or cost. Thirdly, there's a risk of 'vendor lock-in,' where the government becomes heavily reliant on a single contractor, reducing flexibility and bargaining power for future needs. Finally, maintaining consistent oversight and performance management over an extended period can be challenging for the contracting agency, potentially leading to a decline in vigilance and a drift from original objectives.

How does the 'Federal Acquisition Service' (FAS) role influence the procurement of engineering services like this one?

The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), now part of GSA's Federal Marketplace, plays a crucial role in streamlining and improving the government's buying process, including for engineering services. FAS often provides acquisition solutions, contract vehicles, and expertise that agencies can leverage. For this specific contract, GSA's Federal Acquisition Service likely managed the procurement process, potentially utilizing established contract vehicles or frameworks to facilitate the award. Their involvement aims to ensure efficient, compliant, and cost-effective procurement. By centralizing or standardizing aspects of acquisition, FAS helps agencies access necessary services like engineering more readily, while also promoting best practices and competition across the federal government. Their role ensures that procurements align with federal acquisition regulations and policies.

What does the classification 'Engineering Services' (NAICS 541330) typically encompass in federal contracting?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330, 'Engineering Services,' in federal contracting encompasses a broad range of professional services provided by engineers. This typically includes establishments primarily engaged in providing a range of architectural, engineering, and related services. These services can involve the application of engineering principles to design, develop, and implement systems, structures, and processes. Specific activities may include civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, and aerospace engineering consulting; construction, project, and facilities management consulting; and specialized engineering analysis and testing. Federal contracts under this code often support activities related to infrastructure development, defense systems, scientific research, environmental management, and technology implementation.

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

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: $682,779,358

Exercised Options: $652,989,463

Current Obligation: $497,059,053

Actual Outlays: $-1,508

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 4

Total Subaward Amount: $229,816

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADU108

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline