USAID's $72M Mexico Justice Project contract to Management Systems International, Inc. aimed to bolster judicial reform

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $72,255,703 ($72.3M)

Contractor: Management Systems International, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2014-07-16

End Date: 2020-07-15

Contract Duration: 2,191 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CL::IGF CONTRACT TO IMPLEMENT THE MEXICO PROMOTING JUSTICE PROJECT (PROJUST)

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $72.3 million to MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF CONTRACT TO IMPLEMENT THE MEXICO PROMOTING JUSTICE PROJECT (PROJUST) Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure allowed for flexibility but requires careful monitoring of expenditures. 2. Competition was full and open, suggesting a potentially competitive pricing environment. 3. The contract duration of nearly six years indicates a significant, long-term commitment to the project's goals. 4. Performance context is crucial for understanding the effectiveness of judicial reform initiatives in Mexico. 5. The professional, scientific, and technical services sector often involves complex deliverables and requires specialized expertise.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics and comparable project costs. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for complex, evolving projects, can lead to higher costs if not managed diligently. The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty, but the overall cost is subject to the direct costs incurred by the contractor. Further analysis would require comparing the project's outcomes against its investment and against similar international development projects.

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 bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of interest, which is sufficient to establish a competitive baseline.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the judicial institutions and citizens of Mexico, who stand to gain from improved justice system efficiency and fairness. The project aimed to deliver services related to judicial reform, potentially including capacity building, policy development, and technical assistance. The geographic impact is focused on Mexico, with potential ripple effects on regional stability and rule of law. Workforce implications could include the employment of local Mexican professionals and international experts in legal and development fields.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in CPFF contracts if not rigorously managed.
Measuring the direct impact of technical assistance on complex judicial reforms can be difficult.
Ensuring long-term sustainability of reforms beyond the contract period requires careful planning.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
The project addresses a critical development need in judicial reform.
The long contract duration allows for sustained effort and potential for significant impact.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on international development and governance. This sector is characterized by its reliance on specialized expertise and often involves long-term projects aimed at achieving complex societal or governmental improvements. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within USAID's portfolio of democracy and governance programs or similar initiatives by other development agencies.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This suggests that the primary contractor, Management Systems International, Inc., likely handled the majority of the work. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be provided by USAID's contracting officers and program officials. Inspector General audits and reviews may also be conducted to ensure accountability and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Transparency would be enhanced through regular reporting requirements from the contractor and public availability of contract information.

Related Government Programs

USAID Rule of Law Programs
International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement (INCLE) Programs
USAID Democracy and Governance Programs

Risk Flags

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Measuring the direct impact of judicial reform initiatives can be challenging.
Political and security risks in the operating environment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $72.3 million to MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.. IGF::CL::IGF CONTRACT TO IMPLEMENT THE MEXICO PROMOTING JUSTICE PROJECT (PROJUST)

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 $72.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-07-16. End: 2020-07-15.

What were the specific objectives and deliverables of the Mexico Promoting Justice Project (PROJUST)?

The Mexico Promoting Justice Project (PROJUST) aimed to strengthen the rule of law and improve the administration of justice in Mexico. Specific objectives likely included enhancing the capacity of judicial institutions, promoting access to justice for citizens, supporting judicial independence, and fostering transparency within the legal system. Deliverables would have varied but could have encompassed training programs for judges and legal professionals, development of new legal frameworks or procedures, implementation of case management systems, and public awareness campaigns on legal rights. The success of these objectives would be measured against established performance indicators related to judicial efficiency, fairness, and public trust in the justice system.

How does the $72.2 million contract value compare to similar USAID judicial reform projects?

Comparing the $72.2 million contract value requires identifying similar USAID-funded judicial reform or rule of law projects, ideally within Latin America or other regions with comparable development challenges. Factors such as project duration, scope of work, and the specific country context significantly influence cost. For instance, a project focused on national-level systemic reform over five years would likely cost more than a localized capacity-building initiative. Without a direct comparison dataset, it's difficult to definitively state if this contract represents high or low value. However, the duration of nearly six years suggests a substantial, long-term commitment, which is typical for complex governance programs.

What are the key risks associated with implementing a judicial reform project of this magnitude in Mexico?

Key risks associated with implementing a judicial reform project of this magnitude in Mexico include political instability, corruption within the judicial system, resistance to change from entrenched interests, security concerns affecting project personnel and operations, and the inherent complexity of reforming deeply rooted legal and administrative processes. Additionally, ensuring the sustainability of reforms beyond the project's lifespan and accurately measuring the impact of interventions in a complex socio-political environment pose significant challenges. The cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type also introduces a risk of cost escalation if not managed with stringent oversight.

What was Management Systems International, Inc.'s track record with USAID prior to this contract?

Management Systems International, Inc. (MSI) has a history of working with USAID on various development projects. Prior to this $72.2 million contract for the PROJUST project, MSI had been awarded numerous other contracts by USAID, spanning different sectors and geographic regions. Their portfolio typically includes work in democracy and governance, economic growth, education, and health. A review of USAID's contract database and performance evaluations would provide a more detailed understanding of MSI's past performance, including their success rates, adherence to budgets, and quality of deliverables on previous engagements, which would inform the assessment of their capability for the PROJUST project.

How effective was the competition process in ensuring a fair price for the PROJUST contract?

The PROJUST contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' which is the most competitive method available. This means that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data indicates two bids were received. While two bids are better than one, the level of competition is considered moderate. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government. Therefore, while the process was fair and open, the moderate number of bids suggests that the price achieved might not have been as aggressively competitive as it could have been with more offers. Further analysis would require comparing the proposed costs against an independent government estimate or market research.

What is the historical spending trend for USAID's judicial reform and rule of law programs?

Historical spending trends for USAID's judicial reform and rule of law programs generally show a consistent and significant investment in these areas globally. These programs are a core component of USAID's democracy and governance assistance. Annual spending can fluctuate based on geopolitical priorities, specific country needs, and the availability of funding. Over the past decade, USAID has consistently allocated hundreds of millions of dollars annually to support rule of law initiatives worldwide, often through large, multi-year contracts similar to the PROJUST project. Analyzing specific budget allocations and contract awards over time would reveal trends in funding levels, geographic focus, and the types of services procured.

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: 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. (UEI: 045224250)

Address: 200 12TH ST SOUTH, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $72,255,703

Exercised Options: $72,255,703

Current Obligation: $72,255,703

Actual Outlays: $5,785,389

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline