DoD's $51.8M Engineering Services Contract with AMTEC CORPORATION awarded under full and open competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $51,862,433 ($51.9M)
Contractor: Amtec Corporation
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2000-05-05
End Date: 2006-11-03
Contract Duration: 2,373 days
Daily Burn Rate: $21.9K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35816
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $51.9 million to AMTEC CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded to AMTEC CORPORATION for engineering services. 2. The contract duration was 2373 days. 3. Awarded by the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Army. 4. Utilized a Cost Plus Fixed Fee pricing structure. 5. Competition level was 'Full and Open', indicating broad market participation. 6. The contract was awarded in May 2000 and completed in November 2006. 7. The contract was not set aside for small businesses.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics. CPFF contracts can incentivize cost overruns if not managed tightly. Comparing this $51.8 million expenditure over approximately 6.5 years to similar engineering services contracts requires access to granular data on scope, complexity, and market rates at the time of award. The lack of specific performance data makes a definitive value assessment difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition', suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The presence of 3 bidders indicates a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing market reach, the number of bidders can influence price discovery. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition with multiple bidders generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality.
Public Impact
The Department of the Army benefited from specialized engineering services. These services likely supported military readiness and infrastructure projects. The contract's geographic impact was primarily in Alabama, where AMTEC CORPORATION is located. The contract supported a workforce involved in engineering and technical services.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts carry inherent risks of cost escalation if not rigorously monitored.
- Limited public data on specific deliverables makes assessing the full impact and value challenging.
- The contract duration of over six years could indicate a long-term need or potential for scope creep.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, maximizing potential bidder pool.
- Multiple bidders (3) suggest a degree of market interest and competition.
- The contract was successfully completed within its defined period.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader professional services market supporting government and private industry. The market for engineering services is diverse, encompassing civil, mechanical, electrical, and aerospace engineering, among others. Government spending in this area often supports infrastructure development, defense systems, and research and development initiatives. Benchmarking this $51.8 million contract requires comparison against similar large-scale engineering support contracts awarded by federal agencies during the early 2000s.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does information suggest significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses were mandated. The award to AMTEC CORPORATION, a non-small business entity, indicates the primary contract was aimed at larger firms capable of handling the scope and complexity of the engineering services required. This means the direct economic impact on the small business ecosystem through this specific prime contract is likely minimal.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be tied to the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, requiring detailed reporting and justification of costs incurred. Transparency is assessed as fair, given the public availability of award data, though detailed performance and cost breakdowns are typically not publicly disclosed for contracts of this nature. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Engineering Support Contracts
- Army Corps of Engineers Services
- Professional Services Contracts
- Cost-Plus Contracts
- Engineering and Technical Services
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can lead to cost overruns.
- Limited performance data makes value assessment difficult.
- Competition level (3 bidders) is moderate, potentially impacting price discovery.
Tags
department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, engineering-services, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, amtec-corporation, professional-services, alabama, large-contract, completed-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $51.9 million to AMTEC CORPORATION. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is AMTEC CORPORATION.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $51.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2000-05-05. End: 2006-11-03.
What was AMTEC CORPORATION's track record with the Department of Defense prior to this award?
Information regarding AMTEC CORPORATION's specific track record with the Department of Defense prior to May 2000 is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing historical contract awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any documented issues or commendations. Federal procurement databases and agency records would be the primary sources for such an analysis. Understanding their past performance is crucial for evaluating the risk associated with awarding a significant contract like this one.
How does the $51.8 million value compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by the DoD around 2000?
Comparing the $51.8 million value requires context regarding the specific engineering services rendered and the prevailing market rates in 2000. Engineering services contracts can vary widely in scope, complexity, and duration. For instance, a contract for basic design services would differ significantly from one involving complex system integration or large-scale infrastructure project management. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable contracts by agency, service type, duration, and pricing structure (e.g., CPFF, Firm-Fixed-Price) awarded within a similar timeframe. Without such detailed comparative data, assessing whether $51.8 million represented a fair market value is speculative.
What were the primary risks associated with this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract?
The primary risk associated with this CPFF contract 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 estimates, the government bears the burden, while the contractor's profit (the fixed fee) remains constant. This can disincentivize cost control by the contractor. Effective risk mitigation would depend heavily on robust government oversight, detailed cost tracking, stringent auditing, and clear definition of allowable costs and scope to prevent scope creep.
How effective was the competition level (3 bidders) in ensuring competitive pricing for this contract?
A competition level of three bidders for a full and open solicitation suggests a moderate degree of market interest. While more bidders generally lead to stronger price competition, three bidders can still result in competitive pricing, especially if the bidders are closely matched in capability and aggressively pursue the contract. The effectiveness hinges on the specific market dynamics for these engineering services at the time and the government's negotiation strategy. Without knowing the bid prices or the government's cost estimates, it's difficult to definitively state how effective this level of competition was in securing the best price.
What was the historical spending trend for similar engineering services by the Department of the Army in the years leading up to 2000?
Analyzing historical spending trends for similar engineering services by the Department of the Army prior to 2000 would provide valuable context for this $51.8 million award. This involves examining procurement data from previous fiscal years to identify patterns in contract values, types of services procured, and dominant contractors. Understanding whether this award represented an increase, decrease, or continuation of previous spending levels can indicate shifts in program priorities, budget allocations, or market conditions. Such analysis helps in assessing the reasonableness of the contract value and identifying potential anomalies.
What specific engineering disciplines or projects did this contract support?
The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Engineering Services' (NAICS 541330) awarded by the Department of the Army. However, it does not specify the particular engineering disciplines (e.g., civil, mechanical, electrical, aerospace) or the exact projects supported. These services could have ranged from design and analysis to testing and technical support for various military systems, infrastructure, or research initiatives. A detailed statement of work (SOW) or contract modifications would be necessary to ascertain the precise nature and scope of the engineering tasks performed.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › OTHER RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 500 WYNN DRIVE, SUITE 314, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 05
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2000-05-05
Current End Date: 2006-11-03
Potential End Date: 2006-11-03 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-09-22
More Contracts from Amtec Corporation
- Fixed Price W/ EPA Contract. This Contract IS for the Production of 40MM Grenade Systems Family of Ammunition: M430a1-Metal Pallet, M430a1-Wood Pallet, M433, M583A1, M781, M918, Mixed Belt, M385A1, M992, M585, M661, M662, and M433E1, and M583A1 — $965.1M (Department of Defense)
- 200508!000997!2100!w52p1j!u.s. Army Industrial Operations !w52p1j05c0030 !A!N! !N! ! !20050429!20100930!884356429!884356429!006196174!n!amtec Corporation !4230 Capital Circle DR !janesville !wi!53546!37825!105!55!janesville !rock !wisconsin !+000046910882!n!n!000046910882!1310!ammunition, Over 30 MM UP to 75 MM !A6 !ammunition !000 !* !332993!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !a!n!k!2!006!k! !Z!N!F! ! !n!b!n!n! ! !D! !b!a!000!a!b!y!c! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $675.2M (Department of Defense)
- 40MM Grenade Family Systems for Fy10-Fy14 — $542.5M (Department of Defense)
- 40 Millimeter Grenade Ammunition Contract — $539.6M (Department of Defense)
- 40MM Grenade Family Systems for FY10-14 — $296.0M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)