DOT's $27.5M contract for operational support awarded to Advanced Management Technology, Inc. without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,534,178 ($27.5M)

Contractor: Advanced Management Technology, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2022-12-23

End Date: 2025-05-30

Contract Duration: 889 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF OPERATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES TO ASH. THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, AS ORDERED, PRIMARILY IN EIGHT FUNCTIONAL AREAS 1. EXECUTIVE SUPPORT, 2. SECURITY PROGRAM SUPPORT, 3. OTHER ASH PROGRAM S

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20591

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $27.5 million to ADVANCED MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC. for work described as: TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF OPERATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES TO ASH. THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, AS ORDERED, PRIMARILY IN EIGHT FUNCTIONAL AREAS 1. EXECUTIVE SUPPORT, 2. SECURITY PROGRAM SUPPORT, 3. OTHER ASH PROGRAM S Key points: 1. Contract provides broad operational and administrative support across eight functional areas. 2. The award was not competed under simplified acquisition procedures, raising questions about competition. 3. A Time and Materials contract type can pose cost control risks if not managed closely. 4. The contract duration of 889 days suggests a need for sustained support services. 5. The geographic focus on Washington D.C. indicates support for headquarters-level operations. 6. The lack of small business set-aside suggests limited opportunities for smaller firms in this specific award.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $27.5 million over its period of performance requires careful scrutiny, especially given the 'not competed' status. Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark pricing or assess if the government received the best value. The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, while flexible, can lead to cost overruns if not rigorously monitored for labor hours and rates. A comparison to similar operational support contracts would be necessary to determine if the pricing is fair and reasonable.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was explicitly noted as 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP,' indicating it was not openly competed, likely falling into a sole-source or limited competition category. The absence of a competitive process means there were likely no other bidders considered, or the justification for not competing was based on specific circumstances. This lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to drive down costs and ensure the most innovative solutions are considered.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the most cost-effective solution due to the absence of competitive pressure. The government may be paying a premium for services that could have been procured at a lower price through a competitive solicitation.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Office of the Secretary (ASH) are the primary beneficiaries of these operational and administrative support services. Services delivered encompass executive support, security program support, and other program support functions. The contract's geographic impact is concentrated in Washington D.C., suggesting support for federal agency operations at or near the capital. Workforce implications are tied to the contractor's personnel providing these essential support functions, potentially involving specialized administrative and program management expertise.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of innovation.
Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost escalation without strict oversight.
Absence of small business participation may limit opportunities for smaller, specialized firms.

Positive Signals

Contract provides essential operational and administrative support to critical agency functions.
The defined scope across eight functional areas suggests a comprehensive support package.
The contract duration allows for sustained support, potentially leading to efficiencies through contractor familiarity.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' sector (NAICS 541990). This broad category encompasses a wide range of services that do not fit into more specific professional service categories. The market for such support services is vast, with numerous firms capable of providing operational and administrative assistance to federal agencies. Benchmarking would typically involve comparing rates and service offerings for similar support contracts across various government departments, though the lack of competition here complicates direct comparisons.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not awarded under small business set-aside provisions (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that opportunities for small businesses, either as prime contractors or through subcontracting, may be limited for this specific award. Without a set-aside, larger businesses are typically the prime awardees, and while subcontracting plans can benefit small businesses, they are not mandated in the same way as with set-aside contracts. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting goals were established or met.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the contracting officer and the relevant program officials within the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration. As a Time and Materials contract, rigorous monitoring of labor hours, rates, and direct costs is crucial for accountability. Transparency may be limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award; however, contract actions and performance reports should be accessible through federal procurement data systems. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Operational Support Contracts
Department of Transportation Administrative Services
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Contracts
Time and Materials Contracts
Sole Source Federal Procurements

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Time and Materials contract type
Broad scope of services
Lack of small business participation noted

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $27.5 million to ADVANCED MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC.. TO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF OPERATIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES TO ASH. THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, AS ORDERED, PRIMARILY IN EIGHT FUNCTIONAL AREAS 1. EXECUTIVE SUPPORT, 2. SECURITY PROGRAM SUPPORT, 3. OTHER ASH PROGRAM S

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ADVANCED MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $27.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-12-23. End: 2025-05-30.

What is the track record of Advanced Management Technology, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Transportation?

A review of federal procurement data would be necessary to fully assess Advanced Management Technology, Inc.'s track record. This would involve examining past contract awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of contract disputes or terminations. Understanding their past performance, especially with similar types of services and agencies like the DOT, provides crucial context for evaluating the current award's risk and potential for success. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their reliability and capability for this $27.5 million contract.

How does the pricing structure of this Time and Materials contract compare to industry standards for similar support services?

Determining the fairness of the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing requires benchmarking against industry standards and comparable government contracts. T&M contracts typically involve fixed hourly rates for labor and reimbursement for direct costs. To assess value, one would compare the proposed labor rates (by labor category), overhead, and fee percentages against data from other T&M contracts for similar services, ideally those awarded competitively. The lack of competition for this specific contract makes direct comparison challenging, but analysis of historical DOT T&M contracts or General Services Administration (GSA) schedules for professional services could provide a benchmark. Scrutiny of the contractor's cost accounting and justification for rates is paramount.

What are the specific risks associated with a Time and Materials contract of this magnitude and duration?

The primary risk with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract, especially one valued at $27.5 million over nearly three years, is cost escalation. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M contracts do not have a ceiling on the total cost, making robust oversight critical. Risks include the contractor potentially overstating labor hours, inefficient performance, or scope creep that inflates costs without commensurate value. The government must diligently track all billable hours, ensure labor categories and rates are appropriate, and closely manage any changes to the scope of work to mitigate these risks and prevent cost overruns.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a non-competitive basis?

The justification for awarding this contract on a non-competitive basis ('NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP') is not provided in the summary data. Typically, federal agencies must follow specific regulations (like the Federal Acquisition Regulation - FAR) to justify sole-source or limited competition awards. Common justifications include urgency, lack of available sources, specific technical requirements only met by one contractor, or follow-on work to a previous competitive award where only the original contractor can perform. Without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), it is impossible to assess the validity of the non-competitive award.

What are the potential performance implications given the broad scope of services required?

The contract requires support across eight functional areas, including executive support, security program support, and other program support. This broad scope presents potential performance challenges related to coordination, quality control, and ensuring consistent service delivery across diverse functions. The contractor must possess robust management capabilities to effectively allocate resources, maintain quality standards, and integrate services across all areas. The government's performance monitoring and management will need to be equally comprehensive to ensure all aspects of the requirement are met satisfactorily.

How does this contract's value compare to historical spending on similar operational support services by the FAA or DOT?

To compare this $27.5 million contract to historical spending, one would need to analyze past FAA and DOT contracts for 'Operational and Administrative Support Services' or similar categories (e.g., management support, program support). This analysis should consider contracts with similar scopes of work and durations. Examining trends in spending, average contract values, and the prevalence of competitive versus non-competitive awards in this service area would provide valuable context. Without this historical data, it's difficult to determine if this contract represents an increase, decrease, or typical level of spending for such services.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Address: 1515 WILSON BLVD STE 1100, ARLINGTON, VA, 22209

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,708,779

Exercised Options: $27,534,178

Current Obligation: $27,534,178

Actual Outlays: $27,523,809

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline