GSA awards $116M engineering services contract to ManTech, with 1095 days duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $116,361,102 ($116.4M)

Contractor: Mantech Advanced Systems International, Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2023-06-15

End Date: 2026-06-14

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $106.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TITUS

Place of Performance

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

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $116.4 million to MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. for work described as: TITUS Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes performance but requires careful oversight. 3. The total award value is substantial, indicating a significant need for engineering services. 4. The contract duration of 1095 days (3 years) provides long-term stability for the contractor and consistent service delivery. 5. The base contract value is $106.2M, with potential for growth through award fees. 6. The contract is for engineering services, a critical sector for government operations. 7. The contractor, ManTech, is a known entity in the federal contracting space. 8. The contract is a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of $116.3 million over three years for engineering services appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering contracts awarded by GSA or other agencies would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for flexibility and performance incentives, but requires diligent monitoring to ensure costs remain justified by outcomes. Without specific performance metrics or comparable unit costs, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging, but the competitive award process suggests a degree of market validation.

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 fact that it is a delivery order suggests it was likely competed as part of a broader IDIQ contract. The number of bidders is not specified, but full and open competition generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service offerings for the government. This approach maximizes the opportunity for the government to receive the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through potentially lower prices and higher quality services due to the pressure of multiple bidders vying for the contract. This process helps ensure that government funds are used efficiently and effectively.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring specialized engineering expertise, potentially across various domains managed by GSA. The services delivered will encompass engineering solutions, which could range from design and development to analysis and technical support. The geographic impact is primarily focused on Maryland (ST: MD, SN: MARYLAND), where the contractor is located, but services may extend to support federal operations nationwide. The contract supports a workforce skilled in engineering disciplines, contributing to the federal government's technical capabilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly, as the contractor is reimbursed for costs plus a fee that can be adjusted based on performance.
The lack of specific details on the performance metrics for the award fee makes it difficult to assess how effectively taxpayer money is being leveraged for superior performance.
The contract is a delivery order, which implies it is part of a larger IDIQ. The overall value and performance of the IDIQ vehicle itself could present risks or opportunities not fully captured by this single order.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process that typically yields better value.
The contractor, ManTech, has a significant presence and track record in federal contracting, suggesting experience and capability.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure, while requiring oversight, is designed to incentivize high performance and achieve specific objectives.
The three-year duration provides program stability and allows for the development of a strong working relationship between the government and the contractor.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services represent a broad category within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This sector is crucial for government operations, supporting everything from infrastructure development to advanced research and development. The market for federal engineering services is substantial, with agencies like GSA frequently procuring such expertise. This contract fits within the broader landscape of government support services, where specialized technical knowledge is often outsourced to private firms to augment government capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large engineering services contracts awarded by GSA or DoD.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SB: false) and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award was made to a large business, and opportunities for small businesses would likely arise through subcontracting if ManTech chooses to engage them. Without specific subcontracting plans or set-aside requirements, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this particular award is likely limited, though large prime contractors often utilize small businesses for specialized tasks.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the contracting officer and the program office within the General Services Administration. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure necessitates robust performance monitoring to ensure the contractor meets defined objectives and earns their award fee. Transparency is typically facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any issues of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

GSA Federal Acquisition Service Contracts
Engineering and Technical Services
Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Vehicles

Risk Flags

Potential for cost growth in CPAF contracts requires diligent oversight.
Performance metrics for award fee must be clearly defined and monitored.
Contract is a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger IDIQ structure; risks/opportunities of the parent IDIQ should be considered.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $116.4 million to MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.. TITUS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $116.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-06-15. End: 2026-06-14.

What is ManTech's track record with similar Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) engineering contracts with the federal government?

ManTech Advanced Systems International, Inc. has a substantial history of performing on federal contracts, including those utilizing Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structures. Their experience spans various agencies and service areas, often involving complex technical and engineering solutions. Analyzing their past performance on similar CPAF contracts would involve reviewing contract award histories, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any documented issues or successes. A strong track record with CPAF contracts suggests familiarity with the performance metrics, cost tracking, and reporting requirements inherent in this contract type, indicating a lower risk profile for this specific award. However, a detailed review of specific past CPAF engagements would be necessary to confirm consistent success and identify any potential red flags.

How does the $116.3 million total award value compare to other engineering services contracts of similar scope and duration awarded by GSA?

The $116.3 million total award value for this three-year engineering services contract represents a significant investment. To benchmark this value, one would compare it against other large-scale engineering services contracts awarded by the General Services Administration (GSA) or similar civilian agencies over the past few fiscal years. Key comparison points would include the contract's scope of work, the specific engineering disciplines involved, and the duration. For instance, if GSA has awarded multiple contracts in the $30-50 million per year range for comparable services, then this $116.3 million contract (averaging approximately $38.7 million per year) appears to be within a reasonable market range. Conversely, if similar contracts are significantly lower, it might warrant further investigation into the specific requirements and deliverables of this particular award to understand the cost differential.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure for engineering services?

The primary risk indicator for a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract is the potential for cost growth if not meticulously managed. While CPAF incentivizes performance through an award fee, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs. This necessitates robust government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable, and that the performance objectives tied to the award fee are clearly defined, measurable, and rigorously evaluated. Without strong government oversight and clear performance metrics, there's a risk that costs could escalate beyond what is truly necessary to achieve the desired outcomes, or that the award fee might be granted without commensurate exceptional performance. Another risk is the potential for disputes over performance evaluations and the resulting award fee determination.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services procured through GSA's Federal Acquisition Service?

Historical spending patterns for engineering services procured through GSA's Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) generally show a consistent demand for technical and professional services supporting various federal agency needs. GSA FAS often acts as a procurement agent, leveraging its expertise and established contract vehicles (like IDIQs) to acquire services efficiently. Spending in this category typically fluctuates based on government-wide priorities, infrastructure projects, and specific agency requirements. Analyzing historical data would reveal trends in contract types (e.g., FFP, T&M, CPAF), average contract values, and the distribution of spending across different engineering sub-disciplines. This contract's value and type should be assessed against these historical norms to ensure it aligns with established patterns or to understand any deviations.

How does the 'Engineering Services' NAICS code (541330) spending compare across different federal agencies?

The NAICS code 541330, 'Engineering Services,' represents a significant area of federal procurement across numerous agencies. While GSA is a major procurer, agencies like the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Transportation (DOT), Department of Energy (DOE), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are also substantial spenders in this category. DoD, for example, procures extensive engineering services for defense systems, infrastructure, and research. DOT utilizes these services for transportation infrastructure projects. DOE requires them for energy research, development, and facility management. Comparing spending across agencies reveals which departments have the greatest need for external engineering expertise and highlights potential variations in contract types, values, and competition levels based on agency-specific missions and procurement strategies.

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: 47QFCA22R0070

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Mantech International Corporation

Address: 2251 CORPORATE PARK DR STE 600, HERNDON, VA, 20171

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $622,624,221

Exercised Options: $314,693,959

Current Obligation: $116,361,102

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 34

Total Subaward Amount: $111,971,064

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QFCA22D0327

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline