Advanced Management Inc. contract for Delphi Task 239 saw $15.3M in additional funding, exceeding initial estimates

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,354,674 ($15.4M)

Contractor: Advanced Management Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2006-11-01

End Date: 2009-02-27

Contract Duration: 849 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: LINE 14 ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DELPHI TASK 239

Place of Performance

Location: TAMPA, HILLSBOROUGH County, FLORIDA, 33609, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $15.4 million to ADVANCED MANAGEMENT INC for work described as: LINE 14 ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DELPHI TASK 239 Key points: 1. The contract's additional funding suggests potential scope creep or underestimation of initial requirements. 2. Competition dynamics for this IT services contract were robust, indicating a healthy market. 3. Performance context is limited without specific task order details, but the duration suggests a substantial project. 4. Sector positioning places this within IT services, a critical area for government operations. 5. Risk indicators include the significant additional funding, which warrants scrutiny of the original pricing and scope.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $15.3M in additional funding is substantial. Without a clear baseline or comparison to similar Delphi tasks, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The fixed-price nature suggests cost control, but the need for significant additional funds raises questions about the initial pricing accuracy and scope definition. Benchmarking against other IT services contracts of similar complexity and duration would be necessary for a more precise valuation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 3 bidders. This indicates a competitive marketplace for the services provided. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. The fact that Advanced Management Inc. won suggests they offered the best value proposition among the competitors.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it promotes competitive pricing and encourages a wider range of contractors to bid, potentially leading to cost savings.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Transportation, specifically the Federal Aviation Administration, which receives IT services. The services delivered likely involve computer-related support and development, crucial for agency operations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florida, where the contract was performed. Workforce implications include employment for IT professionals within Advanced Management Inc. and potentially subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Significant additional funding ($15.3M) raises concerns about initial cost estimation and potential scope creep.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value and effectiveness of the services rendered.
The contract duration (849 days) is substantial, increasing the risk of obsolescence or changing requirements over time.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process and potentially good pricing.
Fixed-price contract type can provide cost certainty if scope is well-defined.
The contractor, Advanced Management Inc., has a track record, though specific performance on this contract needs further review.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the IT services sector, specifically 'Other Computer Related Services' (NAICS 541519). This sector is characterized by high demand, rapid technological change, and a mix of large and small providers. Government spending in this area is substantial, supporting a wide range of functions from infrastructure management to software development. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other IT service contracts awarded by the FAA and DOT for similar complexity and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a set-aside. However, the prime contractor, Advanced Management Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors, which would need to be tracked separately. The overall impact on the small business ecosystem is indirect, depending on whether small businesses are part of the supply chain for this larger contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract structure, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is facilitated by contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award information. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

FAA IT Modernization Programs
DOT Enterprise IT Services
Federal Civilian IT Procurement
IT Services for Aviation Safety

Risk Flags

Significant cost overrun indicated by additional funding.
Potential for scope creep or inadequate initial planning.
Need for detailed performance review to justify additional funds.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $15.4 million to ADVANCED MANAGEMENT INC. LINE 14 ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DELPHI TASK 239

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ADVANCED MANAGEMENT INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-11-01. End: 2009-02-27.

What was the original estimated cost of the contract before the additional $15.3M funding was added?

The provided data does not include the original estimated cost or the initial award amount. It only specifies the additional funding of $15,354,673.67. To determine the original estimate, one would need to access the contract's initial award documentation or subsequent modifications. Without this baseline, it is impossible to calculate the total contract value or the percentage increase represented by the additional funding. This information is crucial for understanding the extent of the cost growth and assessing the initial planning and budgeting accuracy.

How did the final cost per day compare to industry benchmarks for similar IT services?

To compare the final cost per day to industry benchmarks, we first need to calculate the total contract value. Assuming the $15.3M represents the total value (as no initial award is given), and the duration is 849 days, the average daily cost would be approximately $18,086 ($15,354,673.67 / 849 days). Benchmarking this against industry rates for 'Other Computer Related Services' (NAICS 541519) requires access to current market data, which varies significantly by skill set, location, and contract type. However, for complex IT services, a daily rate in the high thousands is not uncommon, especially for specialized roles. A more precise comparison would involve breaking down the services rendered and comparing rates for specific IT skill sets (e.g., software development, network administration, cybersecurity) against government-wide IT rate schedules or commercial market surveys.

What specific services were included under 'DELPHI TASK 239' that necessitated the additional funding?

The provided data snippet identifies the contract line item as 'LINE 14 ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DELPHI TASK 239' but does not detail the specific services rendered under Task 239 itself. 'DELPHI' likely refers to a broader program or system within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The additional funding suggests that the original scope of Task 239 was either underestimated, expanded, or encountered unforeseen complexities. To understand the services, one would need to consult the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), task orders, or contract modification documents associated with Task 239. These documents would outline the specific IT-related tasks, deliverables, and objectives that required the increased financial commitment.

What is the track record of Advanced Management Inc. on similar government IT contracts?

The provided data indicates that Advanced Management Inc. (co: 'ADVANCED MANAGEMENT INC') was awarded this contract. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their broader contract history within the federal government, particularly for IT services. This involves searching databases like FPDS or SAM.gov for other awards, their values, durations, agencies served, and performance ratings (if available). A review of past performance evaluations, any contract disputes, or awards/commendations would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and effectiveness as a government contractor in the IT sector. Without this broader context, it's difficult to generalize their performance based solely on this single award.

Were there any performance issues or contract disputes reported during the life of this contract?

The provided data does not contain information regarding performance issues or contract disputes related to this specific contract (DELPHI TASK 239) awarded to Advanced Management Inc. Such details are typically found in contract performance reports, agency inspection records, or legal filings, which are not included in this data snippet. A thorough investigation would require accessing internal agency records or public court dockets if any disputes escalated. The absence of readily available negative information does not guarantee flawless performance, but it also doesn't indicate significant, publicly documented problems.

How does the $15.3M in additional funding compare to the typical funding fluctuations for IT contracts of this nature?

The $15.3M in additional funding represents a significant increase, but its typicality depends heavily on the original contract value, which is not provided. If the original contract was, for example, $5M, then $15.3M in additional funding would be a 300% increase, which is highly unusual and concerning. If the original contract was $50M, then it's a 30% increase, which is still substantial but potentially more explainable by scope changes. Generally, IT contracts aim for stable funding, with modifications usually reflecting clearly defined scope adjustments or unforeseen technical challenges. Large, unbudgeted increases often signal issues with initial requirements definition, planning, or execution. Without the original award amount, it's difficult to definitively label this fluctuation as typical or atypical.

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) › ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 11955 FREEDOM DRIVE, SUITE 10000, RESTON, VA, 20190

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $1,389,972,104

Exercised Options: $15,354,674

Current Obligation: $15,354,674

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTFAAC05D00016

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline