HII Mission Technologies Corp awarded $723M task order for Joint Network of Engineering and Emerging Operations (JNEEO) services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $723,294,786 ($723.3M)

Contractor: HII Mission Technologies Corp

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2023-07-07

End Date: 2026-08-31

Contract Duration: 1,151 days

Daily Burn Rate: $628.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACTION IS TO AWARD A TASK ORDER - JOINT NETWORK OF ENGINEERING AND EMERGING OPERATIONS (JNEEO)

Place of Performance

Location: MCLEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $723.3 million to HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACTION IS TO AWARD A TASK ORDER - JOINT NETWORK OF ENGINEERING AND EMERGING OPERATIONS (JNEEO) Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. Task order type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes contractor performance but requires careful oversight. 3. The contract duration of 1151 days indicates a significant, long-term need for these engineering services. 4. The award is a delivery order under a larger contract, implying a phased approach to service delivery. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to engineering services, a critical sector for government operations. 6. The contract is not set aside for small businesses, suggesting large prime contractors are expected to perform the work.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award amount of $723.3 million over approximately three years represents a substantial investment in engineering and emerging operations support. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale engineering services contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for performance-based incentives, which can drive value if managed effectively. The General Services Administration (GSA) is known for its procurement expertise, which may contribute to achieving fair pricing and good value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This task order was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit an offer. The presence of 3 bidders (no) suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific task order. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing price discovery and ensuring fair market value, the actual number of bidders can influence the intensity of that competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is the most beneficial approach for taxpayers as it allows for the widest possible pool of contractors to bid, driving down prices and increasing the likelihood of selecting the best value offer.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely government agencies requiring advanced engineering and operational support for complex networks and emerging technologies. Services delivered will focus on engineering solutions and support for emerging operations, crucial for maintaining and advancing government technological capabilities. The geographic impact is likely national, given the nature of federal engineering services, though specific deployment locations are not detailed. Workforce implications include potential job creation within HII Mission Technologies Corp and its subcontractors, particularly for engineers and technical specialists.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require rigorous oversight to ensure the 'award fee' component is justified by exceptional performance and not merely routine.
The broad nature of 'engineering services' and 'emerging operations' could lead to scope creep if not clearly defined and managed.
Reliance on a single task order for a significant portion of JNEEO operations could pose a risk if HII Mission Technologies Corp faces performance issues.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a robust and fair bidding process.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes high performance, potentially leading to superior outcomes.
The contract is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), an agency with extensive experience in large-scale federal procurement.
The duration of the contract suggests a stable, long-term need and commitment from the government.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector supports a wide range of government functions, from defense and infrastructure to technology development. The market for federal engineering services is substantial, with significant annual spending across various agencies. This specific task order appears to support specialized network engineering and emerging technology integration, aligning with current government priorities for modernization and advanced capabilities.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the prime contractor, HII Mission Technologies Corp, is a large business. This suggests that the primary performance will be handled by the prime or its large subcontractors. There is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals in the provided data, which warrants further investigation to understand the potential impact on the small business ecosystem and opportunities for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this task order will likely be managed by the contracting officer and technical points of contact within the relevant General Services Administration (GSA) or client agency departments. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure necessitates robust performance monitoring and evaluation to ensure that award fees are earned based on demonstrable achievements. Transparency is typically maintained through contract reporting mechanisms, though specific details on public access to performance metrics are not provided. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Acquisition Service Contracts
Engineering and Technical Services
Network Engineering and Telecommunications
Emerging Technology Development and Integration
Department of Defense IT and C4ISR Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure if not managed tightly.
Risk of scope creep if 'emerging operations' and 'engineering services' are not clearly defined.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical JNEEO functions.
Need for robust government oversight to validate award fee justifications.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $723.3 million to HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ACTION IS TO AWARD A TASK ORDER - JOINT NETWORK OF ENGINEERING AND EMERGING OPERATIONS (JNEEO)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $723.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-07-07. End: 2026-08-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for the Joint Network of Engineering and Emerging Operations (JNEEO) program?

The provided data focuses on a single task order awarded in July 2023. To understand the historical spending pattern for the JNEEO program, one would need to examine previous contract awards and task orders associated with this program or its predecessors. This would involve searching federal procurement databases like FPDS or USASpending for all contracts related to JNEEO, analyzing their award dates, amounts, and durations. A trend analysis of this historical data would reveal whether spending has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing, and identify any significant shifts in program funding or scope over time. Without access to this broader historical context, it is impossible to establish a spending pattern.

How does the per-unit cost of the engineering services compare to industry benchmarks?

Determining a precise per-unit cost for comparison is challenging without a clear definition of the 'unit' of service being procured. Engineering services can be billed hourly, by project milestone, or based on specific deliverables. The contract type, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), means the final cost is variable and depends on performance. To benchmark, one would need to identify specific, comparable services rendered under this contract (e.g., hours of network design, number of system integrations) and compare the associated costs to similar services procured by other government agencies or in the commercial sector. Given the $723 million total value over three years, the average annual value is approximately $241 million, indicating a large-scale, complex undertaking.

What is HII Mission Technologies Corp's track record with similar large-scale engineering contracts?

HII Mission Technologies Corp, a subsidiary of Huntington Ingalls Industries, has a significant track record in defense and government contracting, including extensive work in engineering, C5ISR, cyber, and fleet support. They are known for managing large, complex programs for various military branches and intelligence agencies. While specific details on their performance for the JNEEO program are not yet available due to the recent award date, their history suggests they possess the capability and experience to handle contracts of this magnitude. A deeper dive would involve reviewing their past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) on similar contracts to identify any recurring strengths or weaknesses.

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

The primary risks associated with a CPAF contract of this magnitude ($723 million) revolve around cost control and performance validation. CPAF contracts offer flexibility and incentivize contractor performance by allowing for award fees based on achieving specific criteria. However, this structure requires robust government oversight to ensure that the award fees are genuinely earned through exceptional performance, rather than being automatically granted or based on subjective criteria. There's a risk of 'fee creep' if performance metrics are not clearly defined or if the government lacks the resources to adequately monitor and evaluate the contractor's progress. Additionally, defining 'emerging operations' and 'engineering services' precisely is crucial to prevent scope creep and ensure the contractor is delivering the intended value.

How does the competition level (3 bidders) impact the value for taxpayers?

Having three bidders for this task order, while awarded under full and open competition, suggests a moderate level of competition. While more bidders generally lead to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for taxpayers, three bidders still provide a competitive environment. This number indicates that multiple capable firms were interested and willing to invest in preparing a proposal. The ultimate value for taxpayers will depend on the specific evaluation criteria used, the rigor of the negotiation process, and the government's ability to effectively manage the contract and ensure the contractor meets performance expectations to earn any award fees.

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: 47QFCA23R0001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Huntington Ingalls Industries, Inc

Address: 8350 BROAD ST STE 1400, 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: $1,356,026,010

Exercised Options: $822,673,775

Current Obligation: $723,294,786

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 283

Total Subaward Amount: $1,102,960,054

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QFCA22D0303

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline