Department of Transportation awarded $23.5M for engineering services, with performance through 2016

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,486,067 ($23.5M)

Contractor: Concept Solutions LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2010-04-21

End Date: 2016-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,262 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRANSACTION #: 182PR. CO: ELISA BROWN (202) 267-3610. COTR: LYNETTE JAMISON (202) 267-7424. TOR: PHIL PHILLIPS (202) 267-9232. FUNDING IN SUPPORT OF CLIN 0008, REDUNDANT SITES. CONTRACT NO. TBD. VENDOR: TBD. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE IS DATE OF AWARD THROUGH 10/2010. AIM PROGRAMS FY10 F&E. SPEND PLAN #: TAS::69 1301::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: RESTON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20191

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $23.5 million to CONCEPT SOLUTIONS LLC for work described as: TRANSACTION #: 182PR. CO: ELISA BROWN (202) 267-3610. COTR: LYNETTE JAMISON (202) 267-7424. TOR: PHIL PHILLIPS (202) 267-9232. FUNDING IN SUPPORT OF CLIN 0008, REDUNDANT SITES. CONTRACT NO. TBD. VENDOR: TBD. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE IS DATE OF AWARD THROUGH 10/2010. AI… Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 3. Performance period spans over 6 years, indicating a long-term need for these engineering services. 4. The vendor, CONCEPT SOLUTIONS LLC, is a key player in this contract's execution. 5. Funding is allocated for CLIN 0008, supporting redundant sites, a critical infrastructure need. 6. The contract is categorized under Engineering Services, a vital sector for infrastructure development.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $23.5 million for engineering services over a period of approximately 6 years appears to be within a reasonable range for complex infrastructure projects. However, without specific details on the scope of work and deliverables, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type introduces inherent risks for cost control, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee. Benchmarking against similar contracts for redundant site engineering would provide a clearer picture of pricing efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing price discovery and achieving best value, the specific number of bidders can influence the intensity of that competition. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more aggressive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition as it generally drives down costs through market forces, ensuring that the government receives competitive pricing for services rendered.

Public Impact

The Department of Transportation benefits from enhanced engineering services to support critical infrastructure, specifically redundant sites. This contract supports the maintenance and development of vital transportation infrastructure, ensuring operational resilience. The geographic impact is likely national, given the nature of federal transportation infrastructure. The contract supports the engineering workforce, potentially creating or sustaining jobs in specialized technical fields.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs to increase their fee, potentially leading to budget overruns if not closely monitored.
The long performance period (over 6 years) increases the risk of scope creep or changes in requirements that may not be adequately captured in the initial pricing.
Lack of specific details on deliverables makes it difficult to fully assess performance and value received.
The contract is for redundant sites, which implies a need for robust security and reliability, increasing the complexity and potential cost of the engineering services.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, which typically leads to better pricing and value.
The vendor, CONCEPT SOLUTIONS LLC, is likely experienced in providing engineering services for federal agencies.
Funding is allocated for a specific purpose (CLIN 0008, redundant sites), indicating clear program objectives.
The contract has a defined period of performance, allowing for structured project management and oversight.

Sector Analysis

The engineering services sector is a critical component of the federal procurement landscape, supporting a wide array of government functions from infrastructure development to research and development. The Department of Transportation, in particular, relies heavily on engineering services for the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the nation's transportation networks. Spending in this sector can fluctuate based on infrastructure investment initiatives and national priorities. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within the broader categories of architectural and engineering services (NAICS 5413) and construction management services.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears minimal. The focus is on a large prime contractor, CONCEPT SOLUTIONS LLC, to deliver the engineering services. Future analysis could explore whether this prime contractor has a history of engaging small businesses in its subcontracting efforts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Transportation's contracting officers and technical representatives. The contract's Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates diligent oversight to ensure that costs are allowable, reasonable, and allocable, and that the fixed fee is earned. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports and cost breakdowns are typically internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Infrastructure Projects
Department of Transportation (DOT) Capital Improvement Programs
Engineering and Technical Services Contracts
IT Infrastructure Redundancy Projects
Government Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Long performance period increases risk of scope creep and changing requirements.
Limited number of bidders (3) may indicate less competitive pricing pressure.
Lack of specific performance metrics in provided data hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $23.5 million to CONCEPT SOLUTIONS LLC. TRANSACTION #: 182PR. CO: ELISA BROWN (202) 267-3610. COTR: LYNETTE JAMISON (202) 267-7424. TOR: PHIL PHILLIPS (202) 267-9232. FUNDING IN SUPPORT OF CLIN 0008, REDUNDANT SITES. CONTRACT NO. TBD. VENDOR: TBD. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE IS DATE OF AWARD THROUGH 10/2010. AIM PROGRAMS FY10 F&E. SPEND PLAN #: TAS::69 1301::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CONCEPT SOLUTIONS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-04-21. End: 2016-06-30.

What is the specific scope of work for CLIN 0008, 'Redundant Sites,' and how does it relate to the Department of Transportation's mission?

CLIN 0008, 'Redundant Sites,' likely refers to the engineering services required to design, implement, or maintain backup or alternative infrastructure to ensure continuity of operations for critical Department of Transportation (DOT) systems or facilities. This could encompass physical infrastructure like data centers, communication networks, or even physical command centers. The objective is to mitigate risks associated with single points of failure, ensuring that essential transportation services can continue uninterrupted in the event of an outage, disaster, or security incident. The specific scope would detail the technical requirements, performance standards, and deliverables associated with establishing and maintaining these redundant capabilities, directly supporting the DOT's mission of ensuring a safe, efficient, and accessible transportation system for the nation.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure compare to other contract types for similar engineering services, and what are the implications for cost control?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset, or when there is a high degree of uncertainty in the costs involved, such as in research and development or complex engineering projects. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This differs from fixed-price contracts, where the price is set upfront, and from cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts, which include mechanisms to adjust the fee based on performance against targets. The primary implication for cost control in CPFF contracts is the potential for cost escalation, as the contractor has less direct financial incentive to minimize costs compared to fixed-price arrangements. Effective oversight, detailed cost accounting, and clear definition of allowable costs are crucial to manage this risk and ensure value for the government.

What is the historical spending pattern of the Department of Transportation on engineering services, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

The Department of Transportation (DOT) historically allocates significant funding towards engineering services to support its vast infrastructure projects, including highways, bridges, airports, and transit systems. Spending in this category can fluctuate year-to-year based on federal budget allocations, infrastructure investment bills (like the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law), and the lifecycle of major projects. This $23.5 million contract, awarded in 2010 and spanning over six years, represents a substantial, long-term investment in a specific area—redundant sites. It aligns with the DOT's ongoing need for specialized engineering expertise to ensure the resilience and reliability of its operational infrastructure. Analyzing historical DOT spending on similar engineering services, particularly those related to critical infrastructure resilience and IT/facility redundancy, would provide context on whether this award represents a typical or exceptional level of investment for such a specialized need.

What are the potential risks associated with a long performance period (over 6 years) for an engineering services contract?

A long performance period, such as the 2262 days (over 6 years) for this contract, introduces several potential risks for engineering services. Firstly, the scope of work may evolve significantly over such a duration due to technological advancements, changes in regulatory requirements, or shifts in agency priorities. If not managed through robust change control processes, this can lead to scope creep and cost overruns. Secondly, maintaining consistent quality and performance from the contractor over an extended period can be challenging. Contractor personnel may change, institutional knowledge can be lost, and motivation might wane. Thirdly, the longer the contract period, the greater the exposure to economic fluctuations, such as inflation, which could impact the cost of labor and materials, especially under a cost-reimbursable contract type like CPFF. Finally, the government's needs might change, rendering the original scope of work less relevant or even obsolete by the end of the performance period, potentially leading to a contract that no longer delivers optimal value.

What does the number of bidders (3) in a full and open competition suggest about the market for these specific engineering services?

Having three bidders in a full and open competition for these engineering services suggests a moderately competitive market. While 'full and open' implies the widest possible participation, the actual number of bids received provides a more granular view. Three bidders indicate that the requirement was known and attractive enough to elicit interest from multiple firms, but perhaps not so broad as to attract a dozen or more competitors. This level of competition is generally considered healthy; it provides the government with options and encourages competitive pricing without the administrative burden of managing an overwhelming number of proposals. However, it also means the government might not be achieving the absolute lowest price possible, which could potentially be realized with a larger pool of bidders. The specific nature of the engineering services (e.g., highly specialized, requiring specific clearances or experience) could also influence the number of qualified bidders.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

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: 11600 SUNRISE VALLEY DR STE 300, RESTON, VA, 20191

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,511,452

Exercised Options: $23,486,067

Current Obligation: $23,486,067

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline