USAID's $28.4M contract for management consulting services awarded to Management Systems International, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,408,767 ($28.4M)

Contractor: Management Systems International, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Agency for International Development

Start Date: 2013-09-30

End Date: 2022-11-15

Contract Duration: 3,333 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF NEW E3/M&E COMPETITIVE CONTRACT UNDER MOBIS. FUNDING FROM $2.2 MILLION FROM E3/PLC CARRYOVER FUNDS (12/13 DV)

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20523

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Agency for International Development obligated $28.4 million to MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF NEW E3/M&E COMPETITIVE CONTRACT UNDER MOBIS. FUNDING FROM $2.2 MILLION FROM E3/PLC CARRYOVER FUNDS (12/13 DV) Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 2. The contract duration of over 9 years (from award to estimated completion) is substantial. 3. Services fall under Administrative Management and General Management Consulting, a common government need. 4. The contract type is Time and Materials, which can pose cost control challenges. 5. The contract was awarded as a Delivery Order, indicating it's part of a larger vehicle. 6. The funding source includes carryover funds, suggesting a potential need for flexibility in budget allocation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable contract data. The Time and Materials pricing structure, while flexible, can lead to higher costs if not managed closely. The significant duration suggests a long-term need for these services, but the overall value for money depends heavily on the quality of services delivered and the efficiency of the contractor's resource utilization.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. This competitive process is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers. The presence of six bidders (no) suggests a healthy level of interest in this contract opportunity.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down prices through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Agency for International Development (USAID), which receives management consulting support. Services likely include strategic planning, organizational development, and operational efficiency improvements. The contract is geographically focused on Washington D.C. (st: DC, sn: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA). The contract supports administrative functions crucial for the agency's mission delivery.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Long contract duration (over 9 years) may not always reflect current needs or market best practices.
Reliance on carryover funds could indicate potential budget planning or execution challenges.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and competitive process.
Multiple bidders participated, indicating market interest and potential for competitive pricing.
The contract addresses core administrative and management needs of a major federal agency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically management consulting. This sector is a significant component of federal spending, supporting a wide range of agency operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other contracts for similar management and administrative consulting services across various federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements for this contract. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be conducted by USAID's contracting officers and program managers. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Management and Consulting Services
Federal Agency Support Services
Administrative Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing structure.
Long contract duration may not align with evolving agency needs.
Reliance on carryover funds could indicate budget planning issues.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Agency for International Development awarded $28.4 million to MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.. IGF::CT::IGF NEW E3/M&E COMPETITIVE CONTRACT UNDER MOBIS. FUNDING FROM $2.2 MILLION FROM E3/PLC CARRYOVER FUNDS (12/13 DV)

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 $28.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-09-30. End: 2022-11-15.

What is the track record of Management Systems International, Inc. with federal contracts?

Management Systems International, Inc. (MSI) has a history of performing federal contracts, primarily with agencies like USAID. Their portfolio often includes services related to international development, program management, and technical assistance. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts, including client feedback, on-time delivery, and adherence to budget, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and capability. A review of contract award data and any associated performance evaluations would be necessary to fully assess their track record. Given the nature of this contract, their experience in administrative and management consulting is a key factor.

How does the value of this contract compare to similar consulting services procured by USAID or other agencies?

Directly comparing the $28.4 million value without detailed service scopes and performance metrics is difficult. However, large, multi-year consulting contracts are common within federal agencies, especially for long-term strategic or operational support. USAID, in particular, often procures extensive consulting services to support its global development missions. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify contracts with similar objectives (e.g., organizational efficiency, strategic planning) and similar durations, then analyze their total value and pricing structures. The Time and Materials nature of this contract also warrants comparison with fixed-price or cost-plus contracts for similar services to understand potential value differences.

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

The primary risk with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract, especially one spanning over nine years, is the potential for cost escalation. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M agreements reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours and materials used, plus a fee. If not rigorously managed and monitored, this structure can lead to costs exceeding initial estimates, as the contractor is incentivized to bill for more hours or use more expensive materials. Scope creep is another significant risk; without clear definitions and controls, the project's scope can expand, driving up costs. Effective oversight, detailed task orders, and regular performance reviews are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure value for taxpayer money.

How effective are Time and Materials contracts in achieving long-term strategic goals for agencies like USAID?

Time and Materials contracts offer flexibility, which can be beneficial for long-term projects where the exact scope or requirements may evolve. For agencies like USAID, this flexibility can allow for adaptation to changing development landscapes or agency priorities. However, their effectiveness in achieving long-term strategic goals is heavily dependent on robust contract management. Without strong oversight, clear performance metrics, and regular evaluations, T&M contracts can become less about achieving strategic objectives and more about billing hours. Agencies must ensure that the contractor's efforts are consistently aligned with the overarching strategic goals and that performance is measured against tangible outcomes, not just effort expended.

What is the historical spending trend for administrative and management consulting services at USAID?

Historical spending on administrative and management consulting services at USAID, like many large federal agencies, tends to be substantial and can fluctuate based on agency priorities, budget allocations, and specific program needs. Agencies often utilize these services for organizational restructuring, process improvement, strategic planning, and program evaluation. Analyzing past spending data would reveal trends in the volume and value of such contracts. Factors influencing these trends could include shifts in administration policies, the launch of new initiatives, or the need to address specific operational challenges. Understanding these historical patterns provides context for the current contract's scale and duration.

What is the significance of funding being drawn from carryover funds for this contract?

Funding from carryover funds (12/13 DV) suggests that this contract's financial obligations are being met using funds from previous fiscal years that were not fully expended. This can occur for various reasons, such as the delayed start of a project, changes in funding priorities, or the availability of surplus funds. While it allows for flexibility and ensures continuity of services, it can also indicate potential challenges in initial budget forecasting or execution. For taxpayers, it means funds are being utilized efficiently rather than lapsing, but it also highlights the importance of accurate budgeting and timely obligation of funds in subsequent years to avoid reliance on carryovers.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting 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

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Tetra Tech, Inc.

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

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,237,002

Exercised Options: $31,237,002

Current Obligation: $28,408,767

Actual Outlays: $3,395,257

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS23F8012H

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline