DoD's $133M DynCorp Contract Awarded Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $133,319,142 ($133.3M)

Contractor: Dyncorp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-03-03

End Date: 2005-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,945 days

Daily Burn Rate: $68.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: FORT HOOD, BELL County, TEXAS, 76544

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $133.3 million to DYNCORP for work described as: Key points: 1. Significant contract value of $133.3 million awarded to DynCorp. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which can incentivize performance but requires careful oversight. 4. The contract duration of 1945 days (over 5 years) indicates a long-term commitment. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, part of the Department of Defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for contractor reimbursement of costs plus a fee that is adjusted based on performance. This can lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if performance targets are not well-defined or if oversight is lacking.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The use of full and open competition is a positive indicator for price discovery, as multiple bidders are encouraged to submit proposals. This process aims to secure the best value for the government by fostering a competitive environment.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of the award process is intended to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently, although the CPAF structure necessitates ongoing monitoring to control costs and ensure value.

Public Impact

Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure the best possible price. The long-term nature of the contract suggests a sustained need for the services provided. Oversight is crucial for CPAF contracts to ensure performance targets are met and costs are managed effectively. The award to DynCorp highlights a significant government contractor in the defense sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 68 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts require robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
The lack of specific Product/Service Code (PSC) makes it difficult to benchmark against similar services.
No indication of small business participation.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition.
Contract awarded by a major agency (Department of Defense).
Contractor has a history of performance (implied by award).

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad category of services for the Department of Defense, likely related to logistics, support, or operational services. Benchmarking is difficult without a specific PSC, but large DoD service contracts often range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit mention of small business participation in the provided data. This contract, given its size and nature, may not have specifically targeted small businesses, or their involvement might not be captured in this summary.

Oversight & Accountability

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure necessitates strong government oversight to ensure that the contractor meets performance objectives and that costs are reasonable and allowable. Regular reviews and audits are essential for accountability.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure.
Lack of transparency regarding small business participation.
Need for robust oversight to ensure performance and cost control.
Difficulty in benchmarking without specific service details (PSC).

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $133.3 million to DYNCORP. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DYNCORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $133.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-03-03. End: 2005-06-30.

What specific services were provided under this contract, and how did they align with the Department of the Army's mission requirements?

The provided data does not specify the exact services rendered. However, given the contractor (DynCorp) and the awarding agency (Department of the Army), it likely involved support functions such as aviation maintenance, logistics, base operations, or personnel support. Understanding the specific services is crucial for assessing their alignment with military operational needs and strategic objectives.

How effectively was the 'Award Fee' component structured and managed to incentivize desired performance and control costs within the CPAF model?

The effectiveness of the award fee hinges on the clarity and measurability of the performance criteria defined in the contract. A well-structured award fee plan would have clear metrics tied to mission success, cost efficiency, and timeliness. Robust government oversight and objective evaluations are critical to ensure the fee truly reflects superior performance and doesn't simply inflate costs.

What was the competitive landscape like for this specific service requirement, and did the full and open competition yield a demonstrably better value than alternative contracting approaches?

The data indicates 'Full and Open Competition,' suggesting multiple bidders participated. This approach generally promotes price competition and allows the government to select the offer that provides the best value. Without knowing the number of bids received or the details of competing proposals, it's difficult to definitively state if it yielded superior value compared to other methods, but it's the preferred method for maximizing competition.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Computer Sciences Corporation (UEI: 009581091)

Address: 11710 PLAZA AMERICA DR, RESTON, VA, 11

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline