Department of Energy's $14.75M contract for administrative and IT support awarded to Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,750,829 ($14.8M)

Contractor: Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Energy

Start Date: 2010-02-01

End Date: 2015-10-31

Contract Duration: 2,098 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: NEW; TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, PROFESSIONAL, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE TO THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE; PI: GAYLAND OSTEEN

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20585

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Energy obligated $14.8 million to CHICKASAW ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC for work described as: NEW; TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, PROFESSIONAL, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE TO THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE; PI: GAYLAND OSTEEN Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus award fee basis, which can incentivize performance but requires careful monitoring of costs. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential price discovery and value for money. 3. The duration of the contract (over 2000 days) suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. The primary contractor, Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC, received this award without a competitive process. 5. The contract falls under 'Other Computer Related Services', indicating a focus on IT and information management. 6. The award was made to a single entity, limiting the potential for broader economic participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The cost-plus award fee structure allows for costs to be reimbursed plus a fee, with the fee potentially adjusted based on performance. This structure can lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts, especially if performance metrics are not rigorously defined and monitored. A comparison to similar administrative and IT support contracts within the Department of Energy or other federal agencies would be necessary to assess if the pricing is reasonable, but this data is not available.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or qualifications required for the service, or in specific emergency situations. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price reductions and innovation that can arise from a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no market pressure to drive down prices. It also limits opportunities for other businesses to secure federal contracts.

Public Impact

The Office of Science within the Department of Energy benefits from administrative, technical, and IT support. Services delivered include management and technology assistance, crucial for the efficient operation of the Office of Science. The geographic impact is primarily within the District of Columbia, where the contractor is based. The contract supports the workforce by providing essential administrative and IT functions, allowing scientific personnel to focus on research.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have resulted in a higher price than could have been achieved through a competitive process.
The cost-plus award fee structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly.
Sole-source awards limit opportunities for small businesses and other potential contractors.
The long contract duration without re-competition could reduce incentives for continuous improvement.

Positive Signals

The contract provides essential administrative and IT support, ensuring the smooth operation of the Office of Science.
The award fee component, if well-structured, can incentivize contractor performance and efficiency.
The contractor, Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC, was selected for this role, implying some level of qualification or prior relationship.

Sector Analysis

The 'Other Computer Related Services' category, classified under NAICS code 541519, encompasses a broad range of IT services not elsewhere classified. This includes IT consulting, system integration, and IT support. Federal spending in this sector is substantial, supporting various government functions from administrative operations to complex technological initiatives. Contracts like this one are vital for maintaining the technological infrastructure and operational efficiency of federal agencies. Benchmarking this specific contract's value is challenging without competitive data, but the overall IT services market within the federal government is highly competitive, with numerous vendors vying for contracts.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and the prime contractor, Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC, is not explicitly identified as a small business in the provided data. There is no information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, this contract does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem through set-asides or mandated subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Energy's contracting officers and program managers. The cost-plus award fee structure necessitates robust oversight to ensure that costs are reasonable and that the contractor meets performance objectives to earn the award fee. Transparency regarding the specific performance metrics and how the award fee was determined is crucial for accountability. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Department of Energy Administrative Support Contracts
Office of Science IT Services
Federal IT Consulting Services
Cost-Plus Award Fee Contracts
Sole-Source IT Support Awards

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Cost-plus contract type
Limited transparency on performance metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Energy awarded $14.8 million to CHICKASAW ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC. NEW; TITLE: ADMINISTRATIVE, TECHNICAL, PROFESSIONAL, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE TO THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE; PI: GAYLAND OSTEEN

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHICKASAW ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-02-01. End: 2015-10-31.

What is the track record of Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Energy?

Information regarding the specific track record of Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC with federal contracts, especially with the Department of Energy, is not detailed in the provided data. As this was a sole-source award, it suggests a potential pre-existing relationship or a unique qualification that led to this direct award. A deeper dive into the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or other contract databases would be necessary to ascertain their past performance, contract history, and any performance evaluations. Without this information, it's difficult to assess their reliability and past success in delivering similar services.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Award Fee) compare to industry standards for similar IT support services?

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts are common in the federal government, particularly for services where performance outcomes are critical and difficult to define precisely upfront, such as research and development or complex IT services. The structure allows for reimbursement of actual costs plus a base fee, with an additional award fee contingent on meeting or exceeding performance targets. While CPAF can incentivize high performance, it also carries a risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently. Benchmarking the 'cost' component against market rates for similar IT support services is challenging without specific details on labor categories, hours, and overhead. The 'award fee' component's reasonableness depends entirely on the clarity and attainability of the performance objectives.

What are the specific performance metrics used to determine the award fee for this contract?

The provided data does not specify the performance metrics used to determine the award fee for this contract. In a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, these metrics are crucial for ensuring accountability and incentivizing desired outcomes. Typically, they would be outlined in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or a similar document. Examples could include system uptime, response times for technical support, project completion rates, adherence to security protocols, or client satisfaction surveys. Without knowing these specific metrics, it's impossible to evaluate how effectively the award fee mechanism is driving performance and ensuring value for the Department of Energy.

Given this was a sole-source award, what justification was provided for not competing the contract?

The justification for a sole-source award is a critical component of federal procurement transparency and accountability. Agencies must document why a competitive process is not feasible or advantageous. Common justifications include: the existence of only one responsible source capable of providing the required service (e.g., unique proprietary technology or expertise), urgent and compelling needs that preclude competition, or specific circumstances outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). For this contract, the specific justification for the sole-source award to Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC is not provided in the data. Understanding this justification is key to assessing whether the non-competitive award was appropriate and served the government's best interests.

What is the historical spending trend for administrative, technical, and IT support services within the Department of Energy's Office of Science?

Analyzing historical spending trends for administrative, technical, and IT support services within the Department of Energy's Office of Science would provide context for the $14.75 million awarded to Chickasaw Advisory Services, LLC. This data would reveal whether this contract amount is typical, higher, or lower than previous expenditures for similar services. It would also indicate whether spending in this category has been increasing or decreasing over time. Understanding these trends can help identify potential areas of cost savings, assess the overall investment in support services, and evaluate the efficiency of resource allocation within the Office of Science. Without access to historical spending data, it is difficult to place this specific contract in a broader financial context.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Other Computer Related Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Chickasaw Nation (UEI: 070848361)

Address: 17 EXECUTIVE PARK DR S STE 500, ATLANTA, GA, 30329

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Government, Native American Tribal Government, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Tribally Owned Firm, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,096,139

Exercised Options: $22,096,139

Current Obligation: $14,750,829

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline