USAID's $117.5M Administrative Reform Program contract awarded to Management Systems International, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $117,509,609 ($117.5M)

Contractor: Management Systems International, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2011-05-22

End Date: 2016-12-04

Contract Duration: 2,023 days

Daily Burn Rate: $58.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM PROGRAM - TARABOT - BASE AWARD

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $117.5 million to MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. for work described as: ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM PROGRAM - TARABOT - BASE AWARD Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for these services. 2. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) can lead to cost overruns if not closely managed. 3. Performance period spans over five years, indicating a significant, long-term commitment. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541990 covers a broad range of professional services. 5. This award represents a substantial investment in administrative reform initiatives.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable project data. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure inherently carries a risk of cost escalation, which needs careful monitoring by the agency. While the total award amount is significant, its value-for-money depends heavily on the successful implementation and achievement of administrative reform objectives.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. This process is designed to foster price discovery and ensure the government receives competitive pricing. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through market forces, leading to more efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely USAID and its partner organizations, who will receive enhanced administrative processes. Services delivered aim to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative functions within the agency. The geographic impact is likely focused on USAID's operational areas, potentially worldwide. Workforce implications may include the need for specialized skills in administrative reform and management consulting.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can incentivize contractors to increase costs to maximize their fee.
The broad NAICS code may indicate a less defined scope, potentially leading to scope creep.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value and impact.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring a fair and transparent process.
The contract duration suggests a strategic, long-term investment in administrative improvement.
Management Systems International, Inc. is a known entity in government contracting, implying some level of established capability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on administrative reform. This sector is characterized by a wide range of specialized services, from management consulting to research and development. The market size for such services is substantial, driven by government and private sector needs for efficiency and modernization. This contract represents a significant portion of spending within this niche of administrative improvement services.

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 was on full and open competition among all eligible offerors. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data, which could be a missed opportunity for engaging the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program officials within USAID. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award process itself, but detailed operational oversight information is not provided. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

USAID Program Management Support
Government Administrative Services Contracts
International Development Assistance Programs
Management and Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Long contract duration (5 years) may lead to misalignment with evolving needs.
Broad NAICS code could indicate potential for scope creep.
Lack of specific performance metrics in provided data hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $117.5 million to MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.. ADMINISTRATIVE REFORM PROGRAM - TARABOT - BASE AWARD

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Agency for International Development (Agency for International Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $117.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-05-22. End: 2016-12-04.

What is the track record of Management Systems International, Inc. with USAID and similar administrative reform contracts?

Management Systems International, Inc. (MSI) has a history of working with USAID and other federal agencies on various projects, including program management, monitoring and evaluation, and technical assistance. Their experience often spans international development and capacity building. Specific to administrative reform, MSI's past performance would need to be reviewed against the requirements of this particular contract. A detailed analysis would involve examining past contract performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS), any past performance issues or disputes, and the successful delivery of similar services on prior engagements. Without access to these specific performance records, it's difficult to definitively assess their track record for this contract beyond their general presence in the federal contracting space.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type compare to other pricing arrangements for similar administrative reform services?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or when there is uncertainty about the costs involved, which can be common in complex reform initiatives. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers more flexibility but carries a higher risk of cost overruns for the government if not managed diligently. Other arrangements like Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) tie a portion of the fee to performance targets, potentially aligning contractor and government interests more closely. Time and Materials (T&M) contracts are generally used for smaller efforts or when the scope is highly uncertain and requires flexibility. For administrative reform, CPFF can be suitable if innovation and adaptation are key, but it necessitates robust oversight to control costs and ensure value.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this administrative reform program?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this Administrative Reform Program. Typically, for such programs, KPIs would be designed to measure improvements in efficiency, cost savings, process streamlining, enhanced service delivery, and stakeholder satisfaction. Examples could include reduction in processing times for administrative tasks, decrease in operational costs, improved accuracy rates in record-keeping, successful implementation of new administrative systems or policies, and positive feedback from internal and external stakeholders. The effectiveness of the CPFF contract structure relies heavily on the clear definition and rigorous monitoring of these KPIs to ensure the fixed fee is earned through demonstrable progress and achievement of reform objectives.

What is the historical spending trend for administrative reform programs by USAID or similar agencies?

Historical spending on administrative reform programs by USAID and similar agencies can fluctuate based on strategic priorities, budget allocations, and the perceived need for organizational efficiency. While specific data for 'administrative reform' as a distinct category across all agencies is not readily available in this dataset, USAID, in particular, invests significantly in program management and operational support to ensure the effective delivery of its development assistance. Spending in this area often aligns with broader government initiatives focused on improving efficiency, reducing waste, and enhancing accountability. Analyzing past USAID budgets and contract awards for management support, technical assistance, and organizational development would provide context. Trends might show increased spending during periods of government-wide efficiency drives or when new technologies or management paradigms are being adopted.

What are the potential risks associated with a five-year contract for administrative reform, particularly under a CPFF structure?

A five-year contract for administrative reform, especially under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, presents several potential risks. Firstly, the extended duration increases the risk of the program becoming misaligned with evolving agency needs or technological advancements. Secondly, the CPFF structure itself carries inherent risks of cost escalation if not rigorously managed; the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to a fixed-price contract. There's also a risk of 'vendor lock-in,' where the agency becomes overly reliant on the contractor for critical administrative functions. Furthermore, maintaining consistent oversight and performance management over such a long period can be challenging for agency staff. Finally, if the initial scope definition is weak, scope creep can lead to significant cost increases and delays, undermining the intended reform outcomes.

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) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Address: 600 WATER ST SW STE A, WASHINGTON, DC, 20024

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $118,048,737

Exercised Options: $118,048,737

Current Obligation: $117,509,609

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 12

Total Subaward Amount: $55,999,103

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline