Peraton Inc. awarded $345.5M GSA contract for engineering services, with 315,530 units delivered
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $345,505,131 ($345.5M)
Contractor: Peraton Inc.
Awarding Agency: General Services Administration
Start Date: 2024-01-05
End Date: 2027-01-04
Contract Duration: 1,095 days
Daily Burn Rate: $315.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: INFORMATION ADVANTAGE ENTERPRISE IAE
Place of Performance
Location: FORT GORDON, RICHMOND County, GEORGIA, 30905
State: Georgia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
General Services Administration obligated $345.5 million to PERATON INC. for work described as: INFORMATION ADVANTAGE ENTERPRISE IAE Key points: 1. Contract value of $345.5 million over 3 years suggests significant investment in engineering services. 2. The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' indicates a robust bidding process, potentially leading to better pricing. 3. A high number of units (315,530) implies a large-scale service delivery, requiring efficient management. 4. The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' contract type introduces performance incentives, aligning contractor and agency goals. 5. Delivery orders suggest flexibility in tasking, but require careful monitoring to manage scope creep. 6. The contract's duration of 1095 days allows for sustained support but necessitates long-term planning.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The total contract value of $345.5 million for engineering services over three years appears reasonable given the scale implied by 315,530 units. Without specific per-unit cost data or comparable contract benchmarks, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the competitive nature of the award suggests that pricing was likely scrutinized. The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' structure, if managed effectively with clear performance metrics, can drive good value by incentivizing efficient and high-quality service delivery.
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 a bid. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific award. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, a competitive process was still employed, which is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring a fair market price.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, provides taxpayers with assurance that the government sought the best possible value and did not restrict opportunities to a select few.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring specialized engineering expertise, enhancing their operational capabilities. Services delivered encompass a broad range of engineering support, crucial for complex government projects. The contract's geographic impact is not specified but likely supports federal operations nationwide. Workforce implications include potential job creation within Peraton Inc. and its subcontractors in engineering fields.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost-plus award fee contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not rigorously managed and monitored.
- The large number of units could indicate a high volume of repetitive tasks, potentially leading to quality control challenges if not properly overseen.
- Lack of specific details on the engineering services provided makes it difficult to assess the true value and potential risks.
- The contract's duration, while allowing for continuity, might also lock the government into a specific provider for an extended period, potentially missing out on newer technologies or more competitive offerings that emerge later.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent procurement process.
- The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' structure incentivizes high performance and quality, potentially leading to better outcomes.
- The contract is with Peraton Inc., a known entity in the government contracting space, implying some level of established capability.
- The General Services Administration (GSA) is overseeing the contract, which typically involves established oversight and management protocols.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS code 541330), a significant segment of the federal IT and professional services market. The federal government is a major consumer of engineering services, utilizing them for infrastructure projects, defense systems, research and development, and general operational support. Spending in this sector is often driven by national security needs, infrastructure modernization initiatives, and scientific advancement. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large engineering services contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense, NASA, and the Department of Transportation.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'ss: false' and 'sb: false'. This means that small businesses were not specifically targeted for this award. While Peraton Inc. may engage small businesses as subcontractors, there is no explicit requirement or set-aside driving such engagement within this specific contract. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore indirect, relying on Peraton's subcontracting decisions rather than a direct mandate.
Oversight & Accountability
The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for the oversight of this contract, operating under its Federal Acquisition Service. GSA typically employs contract officers and program managers to monitor performance, ensure compliance with terms and conditions, and manage payments. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS-NG. Inspector General jurisdiction would likely fall under the GSA's OIG, which investigates fraud, waste, and abuse in GSA programs and contracts.
Related Government Programs
- GSA Federal Supply Schedule Contracts
- Engineering and Technical Services
- Cost-Plus-Award-Fee Contracts
- Defense Engineering Services
- Professional Services Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns in CPAF contracts if not managed tightly.
- Scope creep risk due to delivery order flexibility.
- Definition of 'unit' is unclear, hindering precise value analysis.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes award fee assessment opaque.
Tags
engineering-services, general-services-administration, peraton-inc, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, professional-services, federal-acquisition-service, georgia, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
General Services Administration awarded $345.5 million to PERATON INC.. INFORMATION ADVANTAGE ENTERPRISE IAE
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is PERATON INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $345.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2024-01-05. End: 2027-01-04.
What is the historical spending pattern for Peraton Inc. with the General Services Administration?
Analyzing Peraton Inc.'s historical spending with the GSA requires access to detailed contract databases. However, Peraton is a significant government contractor across various agencies, including the GSA. Their portfolio often includes IT services, mission support, and engineering solutions. A review of past GSA awards to Peraton would reveal trends in contract types, dollar values, and the specific services procured. This historical data is crucial for understanding Peraton's established relationship with GSA and assessing whether this new $345.5 million contract represents a significant increase or continuation of prior business levels. Without specific historical figures, it's presumed that Peraton has a substantial track record with GSA, given the scale of this award.
How does the per-unit cost, if calculable, compare to industry benchmarks for similar engineering services?
Calculating a precise per-unit cost from the provided data is not feasible as the 'unit' is defined as 315,530, but the nature of the engineering service provided per unit is unspecified. Engineering services are highly variable; a 'unit' could represent an hour of labor, a specific deliverable, a system component, or a project phase. Therefore, a direct per-unit cost comparison to industry benchmarks is not possible without further clarification on what constitutes a 'unit' and the specific services rendered. Benchmarking would typically involve comparing the total contract value against the scope of work and the number of labor hours or specific deliverables, relative to similar contracts awarded to other firms for comparable services.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used in the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure for this contract?
The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract are not detailed in the provided data. In a CPAF structure, the government establishes objective performance standards and metrics. The contractor earns a base fee plus an award fee based on how well they meet or exceed these predefined KPIs. For engineering services, these KPIs could include factors such as on-time delivery of milestones, adherence to budget, quality of technical solutions, innovation, customer satisfaction, and successful integration of systems. The GSA, as the contracting agency, would have defined these KPIs in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) to ensure the contractor is incentivized to deliver optimal results aligned with government objectives.
What is the risk associated with the 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' contract type for this specific engineering service?
The primary risk associated with a 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' (CPAF) contract type, particularly for complex engineering services, is the potential for cost growth if performance targets are not clearly defined or if oversight is insufficient. While CPAF incentivizes performance, the government bears the risk of covering allowable costs. If the award fee criteria are too lenient or poorly defined, the contractor might receive a substantial award fee even if performance is only marginally above average, increasing the overall cost to the government. Conversely, if the criteria are too stringent or unrealistic, it could demotivate the contractor. Effective management and clear, measurable KPIs are essential to mitigate these risks and ensure value for money.
How does the competition level (3 bidders) impact the potential for cost savings or innovation compared to a sole-source or limited competition award?
Having three bidders in a full and open competition, as seen in this award, generally offers a better opportunity for cost savings and innovation compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios. Three bidders create a competitive dynamic where each firm aims to offer the most attractive proposal in terms of price, technical approach, and past performance. This pressure can lead to more competitive pricing and encourage firms to differentiate themselves through innovative solutions. In contrast, sole-source awards eliminate competition entirely, potentially leading to higher prices and less incentive for innovation, while limited competition restricts the pool of potential offerors, offering only a moderate level of competitive pressure.
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: 47QFCA23R0043
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C.
Address: 12975 WORLDGATE DR, HERNDON, VA, 20170
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $913,549,338
Exercised Options: $527,293,055
Current Obligation: $345,505,131
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 61
Total Subaward Amount: $227,389,469
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADU117
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2024-01-05
Current End Date: 2027-01-04
Potential End Date: 2029-01-04 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-23
More Contracts from Peraton Inc.
- 200107!000034!5700!GZ80 !smc/Pks !F0470101C0001 !A!N!*!Y! !20001103!20061031!052819732!052819732!001216845!n!itt Industries, Inc , Systems !4410 E Fountain Blvd !colorado Sprin !co!80916!16000!041!08!colorado Springs !EL Paso !colorado !+000016429445!n!n!000000000000!ac26!rdte/Missile and Space Systems-Mgmt Support !A2 !missile and Space Systems !3000!NOT Discernable or Classified !541710!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!B! !A !Y!R!2!003!B! !A!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !c!c!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! — $1.7B (Department of Defense)
- THE Exploration and Space Communications Projects Division (ESC) IS a National Resource Located AT Goddard Space Flight Center (gsfc) Which Enables Scientific Discovery and Space Exploration by Providing Innovative and Mission-Effective Space Communications and Navigation Solutions to a Large Community of Diverse Customers. ESC Manages Operational Geostationary Communications Relay Satellites and Ground Systems for the Space Communications and Navigation (scan) Program AT Nasa Headquarters. Today, Scan Network Systems Consist of the Space Network (SN), the Near Earth Network (NEN), and the Deep Space Network (DSN). the Day-To-Day Management of These Three Networks IS Currently NOT Fully Consistent. IT IS the Intention of the Government to Unify the SN and NEN Where Practicable Under This Contract Using Integrated, Common Management Practices and Network Solutions — $1.5B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Nasa Goddard Space Flight Center's (gsfc) Goal for the Space Communications Networks Services Contract (scns) IS to Enable Mission Success for Every Customer Using Scns Services. KEY Objectives of the Scns Contract ARE to Decrease Cost and Maintain or Improve Operational Efficiency and Reliability, While Maintaining an Acceptable Level of Risk and Providing for Safe Operation of the Missions. the Contractor Shall Implement a Safety, Health, and Mission Assurance Program That Provides a Safe and Healthy Work Environment, Minimizes Program Risk, and Maximizes Nasa Mission Success. the Contractor Shall BE Responsible and Accountable for Achieving the Required Results. Core Requirement Functions, Such AS Configuration Management, Quality Assurance, ETC. ARE Required to Support Idiq Task Orders. the Space Network (SN) IS Comprised of a Fleet of On-Orbit Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (tdrs) and Associated Ground Systems That Provide Telecommunications Services. the Nature of the SN Architecture, I.E., Extremely Large Capital Investment, Contractor Operated Facilities, Continuous 24X7 Requirements, ETC., Lends Itself to a Core Requirements Approach. the Ground Network (GN) Consists of an Orbital Tracking Network and the Satellite Laser Ranging Network. the Nature of the Ground Network Architecture, I.E., Diverse MIX of Commercial and Government Assets, Evolving Geographic and Technical Customer Requirements, and Legacy Systems, ETC. Lends Itself to an Idiq Approach. Other Activities, I.E., Very Long Baseline Interferometry Network Operations and Maintenance (O&M), Electronic System Test Laboratory, Requirements Development, Hardware and Software Development, ETC. ARE Best Suited to an Idiq Approach in the Resource-Constrained Environment That Nasa Operates in — $1.2B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Operational Planning Implementation and Assessment Services (opias) Base Award — $800.8M (General Services Administration)
- Sitec 3 EOM Provides Ussocom With O&M Services to Maintain Netops, Maintain Systems & Network Infrastructure, Provide END User & Common Device Support, Provide Configuration, Change, License, & Asset Mgmt. Conduct Training and Perform Imacs Services — $651.0M (General Services Administration)
Other General Services Administration Contracts
- Software Life Cycle Development — $1.4B (Science Applications International Corporation)
- Task Order (TO) 47qfca21f0018 IS Hereby Awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH) to Provide Enterprise Level Data to the Ousd(c), and ITS Strategic Partners (I.E., DOD Fourth Estate, DOD Departments, and IC Community) — $1.4B (Booz Allen Hamilton Inc)
- Federal Contract — $1.2B (Booz Allen Hamilton Inc)
- THE Scope of the to IS to Provide Enterprise IT Services for the Usace — $1.1B (Science Applications International Corporation)
- Task Order Award — $1.1B (Booz Allen Hamilton Inc)