Engineering services contract awarded to Science Applications International Corporation for $389M over three years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $389,221,323 ($389.2M)

Contractor: Science Applications International Corporation

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2018-10-06

End Date: 2021-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,090 days

Daily Burn Rate: $357.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF BATTLEFIELD SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $389.2 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BATTLEFIELD SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract's value suggests a significant need for specialized engineering expertise within the government. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are crucial for understanding pricing efficiency. 3. Performance metrics and risk indicators will be key to assessing the overall value. 4. The duration of the contract implies a long-term requirement for these services. 5. Sector positioning indicates a focus on complex engineering solutions. 6. The award amount is substantial, warranting close scrutiny of cost-effectiveness.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without specific service details. However, the award amount of $389 million over three years indicates a substantial investment. Comparing the per-unit cost or the overall value against similar large-scale engineering service contracts would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type introduces potential for cost overruns if not managed diligently, impacting the overall value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. With two bids received, the level of competition appears limited. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a broader range of innovative solutions. The limited number of bids may indicate high barriers to entry or a specialized market.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers, the limited number of bidders could mean that the government did not achieve the most competitive pricing possible.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely government agencies requiring advanced engineering and technical support. Services delivered encompass engineering services, crucial for complex project development and execution. The geographic impact is noted as Alabama (AL), suggesting a concentration of work or a specific project location. Workforce implications may include the creation or sustainment of specialized engineering jobs in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Limited competition (2 bids) may have resulted in suboptimal pricing.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring broad market access.
Contract duration suggests a stable, long-term need for these services.
Contractor's extensive experience in similar large-scale projects.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of government procurement supporting various technological and infrastructure initiatives. The market for these services is characterized by high technical expertise requirements and significant contract values. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale engineering support contracts across different federal agencies, particularly those involving defense, aerospace, or complex system development.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary focus is on large prime contractors. Any subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on the prime contractor's internal policies and the specific needs of the project, rather than a mandated requirement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) and the agency's procurement oversight bodies. Accountability measures are embedded within the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed project-level reporting may vary. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Professional Services
Defense Engineering Support
Systems Engineering

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Limited competition (2 bids) may impact price competitiveness.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data.
Contract duration is substantial, requiring sustained oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $389.2 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. IGF::OT::IGF BATTLEFIELD SYSTEMS ENGINEERING SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $389.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-10-06. End: 2021-09-30.

What is the track record of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in delivering similar engineering services contracts to the federal government?

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has a long and extensive history of providing engineering and technical services to various U.S. federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, NASA, and civilian agencies. They are known for their capabilities in areas such as systems engineering, cybersecurity, information technology, and mission support. SAIC has consistently secured large, complex contracts, demonstrating their capacity to manage significant budgets and deliver on challenging technical requirements. Their track record includes numerous successful projects involving complex system design, integration, and sustainment. However, like any large contractor, they have also faced scrutiny and occasional performance issues on specific contracts, which are typically addressed through contract modifications, performance improvement plans, or dispute resolution processes. A detailed review of their past performance ratings and any contract disputes would provide a more granular understanding of their reliability for this specific type of service.

How does the awarded amount of $389 million compare to the typical spending on large-scale engineering services contracts by the General Services Administration (GSA)?

The $389 million award for engineering services is a substantial figure, indicative of a significant and potentially long-term requirement. For the General Services Administration (GSA), which manages a vast portfolio of contracts across numerous categories, this amount represents a considerable investment. GSA's Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) often awards large contracts for professional and technical services. While specific benchmarks vary widely based on the nature of the services, duration, and complexity, contracts in the hundreds of millions of dollars are not uncommon for major government-wide acquisition contracts or large-scale support services. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze GSA's historical spending data for engineering services, looking at the average and median award values for contracts of similar scope and duration. This contract's value suggests it is likely a key program or a critical support function requiring extensive engineering expertise.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude, and how are they typically mitigated?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, especially one valued at $389 million, is the potential for cost overruns. In a CPFF structure, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. If the contractor's costs exceed projections, the government bears that additional cost, while the contractor's fee remains constant. This can lead to the total contract cost significantly exceeding the initial estimates. Mitigation strategies employed by the government include rigorous cost monitoring and control, detailed audits of contractor expenditures, clearly defined performance metrics, and strong contract administration. Establishing realistic initial cost estimates, requiring detailed work breakdown structures, and implementing robust change control processes are also crucial. Furthermore, the government often includes incentives or penalties tied to performance and cost efficiency, although the CPFF structure itself inherently shifts cost risk to the government.

Given the 'full and open competition' award type but only two bids, what does this imply about the market for these specific engineering services?

The fact that this contract was awarded under 'full and open competition' but received only two bids suggests a specialized market with potentially high barriers to entry. Full and open competition means the solicitation was broadly advertised, allowing any responsible source to submit an offer. Receiving only two bids could indicate several factors: the technical requirements are highly specialized, demanding unique expertise or certifications that only a few companies possess; the contract value, while large, might not be sufficiently attractive relative to the investment required to bid; or the bidding process itself may have been complex or costly. It could also imply that the incumbent contractor (if applicable) had a strong advantage, or that potential bidders perceived significant risks or challenges. This limited competition might mean the government did not achieve the most competitive pricing possible compared to a scenario with numerous bidders.

What are the potential implications of the contract being awarded to Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) for the Alabama (AL) region?

An award of this magnitude to SAIC, with a noted geographic impact in Alabama (AL), could have several implications for the region. Firstly, it suggests that SAIC may have a significant operational presence or project site within Alabama, potentially leading to job creation or expansion of their existing facilities in the state. This could include hiring engineers, technicians, project managers, and support staff. Secondly, it signifies that Alabama is a key location for government engineering projects, potentially attracting further investment and development in related industries within the state. Thirdly, local subcontractors and suppliers in Alabama might have opportunities to participate in the project, contributing to the regional economy. The long-term duration of the contract (1090 days) implies a sustained economic impact rather than a short-term boost.

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: ID04160056001

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12010, SUNSET HILLS ROAD, RESTON, VA, 20190

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $406,635,452

Exercised Options: $406,635,452

Current Obligation: $389,221,323

Actual Outlays: $-42,676

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 200

Total Subaward Amount: $457,623,815

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADU329

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline