Booz Allen Hamilton awarded $1.09B engineering services task order by GSA, with 3 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $1,087,711,286 ($1.1B)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2022-09-06

End Date: 2026-09-05

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $745.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TASK ORDER AWARD

Place of Performance

Location: MCLEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $1.09 billion to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: TASK ORDER AWARD Key points: 1. The contract's value suggests a significant need for engineering expertise within the federal government. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a moderately contested award, potentially impacting price efficiency. 3. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure introduces performance-based incentives but requires careful oversight to manage costs. 4. The duration of the order (1460 days) points to a long-term requirement for sustained engineering support. 5. The specific engineering service NAICS code (541330) covers a broad range of technical disciplines. 6. The award is a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, implying a pre-established relationship or framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award amount of over $1 billion for engineering services is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale engineering contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) pricing structure, while common for complex services, necessitates diligent monitoring to ensure costs remain reasonable and aligned with performance objectives. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a competitive environment that likely contributed to a fair, though not necessarily the lowest possible, price.

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 offers. With three bidders participating, the competition level is moderate. This suggests that while the award was not a sole-source or limited competition, the number of bidders may not have driven prices down to the absolute lowest possible point. The agency likely received a range of proposals to evaluate.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition with multiple bidders generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a more competitive pricing environment and encouraging efficiency from the awarded contractor.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies requiring specialized engineering services, potentially across various sectors. The services delivered will likely encompass design, analysis, consulting, and project management for complex engineering initiatives. The geographic impact is likely national, given the General Services Administration's role in managing federal procurement. The contract could support a significant number of engineering professionals, both within Booz Allen Hamilton and potentially through subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure can lead to cost overruns if not rigorously managed and monitored for performance.
The large contract value raises concerns about potential scope creep if requirements are not clearly defined and controlled.
Reliance on a single large contractor for such a substantial engineering requirement could pose a risk if performance falters.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
The contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, is a well-established firm with extensive experience in federal contracting.
The task order has a defined period of performance, allowing for structured management and evaluation.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services (NAICS 541330) represent a significant segment of the federal contracting market, encompassing a wide array of technical disciplines from civil and mechanical to electrical and aerospace engineering. Federal agencies rely heavily on these services for infrastructure projects, defense systems, research and development, and operational support. Spending in this sector is often driven by national security needs, infrastructure modernization efforts, and scientific advancement. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large engineering services contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense, Department of Transportation, or GSA itself.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions (ss=false, sb=false). As a large prime contract awarded to a major defense contractor, the primary impact on small businesses would likely be through subcontracting opportunities. The extent of small business participation will depend on Booz Allen Hamilton's subcontracting plan and the specific needs of the task order. Without explicit set-asides, small businesses may face challenges competing directly for prime positions on such large awards.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically its Federal Acquisition Service. As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, performance metrics and cost controls will be critical areas of oversight. The contract's duration and value suggest that regular reporting, audits, and program reviews are likely in place. Transparency will depend on GSA's adherence to federal procurement regulations regarding contract award documentation and performance reporting. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Multiple Award Schedules
Engineering and Technical Services Contracts
Defense Engineering Support
Federal Infrastructure Projects
Professional Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) requires robust oversight.
Long contract duration (4 years) increases risk of requirement changes.
Potential for contractor personnel turnover over the contract life.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $1.09 billion to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. TASK ORDER AWARD

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 $1.09 billion.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-09-06. End: 2026-09-05.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services (NAICS 541330) by the General Services Administration?

The General Services Administration (GSA) consistently awards significant contracts for engineering services, reflecting its role in supporting federal agencies' infrastructure and operational needs. Historical data indicates a steady demand for these services, often channeled through large indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicles and task orders. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on federal budget priorities, infrastructure initiatives, and specific agency requirements. Analyzing GSA's historical spending for NAICS 541330 reveals a multi-billion dollar annual commitment, with major contractors like Booz Allen Hamilton frequently securing substantial portions of this spending. The trend often shows an increasing reliance on specialized engineering expertise for complex projects, driving up the average value of individual awards over time.

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 superior performance by allowing the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a base fee, with the potential for an additional award fee based on performance against pre-defined criteria. For engineering services, this means contractors are motivated to exceed expectations in areas like technical quality, timeliness, and innovation. However, it also places a significant burden on the government to establish clear, objective, and measurable performance standards. Effective oversight is crucial to prevent cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for costs incurred. The award fee determination process must be rigorous and fair to ensure that the incentive mechanism truly drives desired outcomes without leading to unnecessary expenditures. Without strong government oversight and well-defined metrics, CPAF contracts can become susceptible to escalating costs.

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

Booz Allen Hamilton possesses an extensive and well-established track record in securing and executing large federal contracts, including those for engineering and technical services. The company frequently appears as a prime contractor across various federal agencies, particularly in defense, intelligence, and civilian sectors. Their history includes numerous multi-million and billion-dollar awards, demonstrating a capacity to manage complex, long-term projects. Performance reviews and contract histories available through federal procurement databases generally reflect a strong capability in delivering sophisticated engineering solutions. However, like any large contractor, they have also faced scrutiny and occasional challenges on specific contracts, underscoring the importance of ongoing performance monitoring by the awarding agencies.

How does the number of bidders (3) in this full and open competition compare to typical competition levels for similar engineering services contracts?

A competition level with three bidders for a full and open solicitation of this magnitude (over $1 billion) can be considered moderately competitive. While more bidders generally lead to greater price pressure and potentially better value, three offers often indicate sufficient market interest and a reasonable degree of competition. In highly specialized or niche engineering fields, three bidders might represent a robust competition. Conversely, for more commoditized engineering services, a higher number of bidders might be expected. The key takeaway is that the government had multiple options to choose from, allowing for a comparative evaluation of technical capabilities and pricing, which is generally favorable for price discovery compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

What are the potential risks associated with a 1460-day (4-year) performance period for this engineering services contract?

A 1460-day (4-year) performance period for a large engineering services contract presents several potential risks. Firstly, the extended duration increases the likelihood of requirement changes due to evolving technology, agency needs, or policy shifts. Managing scope creep effectively over such a long period is critical. Secondly, maintaining consistent performance quality and contractor engagement over four years can be challenging; contractor personnel may change, and institutional knowledge can be lost. Thirdly, market conditions, including labor rates and material costs, can fluctuate significantly over four years, potentially impacting the cost-effectiveness of a fixed-fee or even a CPAF structure if not adequately addressed through contract clauses. Finally, the government's ability to adapt to unforeseen circumstances or pivot to alternative solutions is constrained by the long-term commitment.

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: 47QFCA22R0055

Offers Received: 3

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: $1,525,618,176

Exercised Options: $1,330,327,699

Current Obligation: $1,087,711,286

Actual Outlays: $-5,685

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 123

Total Subaward Amount: $216,590,756

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