DoD's $174M contract for human effectiveness research awarded to ManTech Geo-Centers JV shows mixed value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,872,666 ($16.9M)

Contractor: Mantech GEO Centers JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-02-28

End Date: 2006-03-15

Contract Duration: 1,841 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: 200111!000051!5700!GR16 !AFRL/MLKH HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS BR!F3361500C6060 !A!N!*!N! !20010228!20060315!007489771!174245993!053518312!N!MANTECH GEO-CENTERS JOINT VENT!12015 LEE JACKSON HIGHWAY !FAIRFAX !NC!22033!26496!600!51!FAIRFAX !FAIRFAX (CITY) !VIRGINIA !+000000826848!N!N!000000000000!AD92!RDTE/OTHER DEFENSE-APPLIED RESEARCH !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541710!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!U!2!002!B! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!C!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! !Y! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: MCLEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.9 million to MANTECH GEO CENTERS JV for work described as: 200111!000051!5700!GR16 !AFRL/MLKH HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS BR!F3361500C6060 !A!N!*!N! !20010228!20060315!007489771!174245993!053518312!N!MANTECH GEO-CENTERS JOINT VENT!12015 LEE JACKSON HIGHWAY !FAIRFAX !NC!22033!26496!600!51!FAIRFAX !FAIRF… Key points: 1. Contract value of $174M over its life suggests a significant investment in human effectiveness research. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified bidders. 3. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure can incentivize contractors to control costs, but also carries inherent risks. 4. The contract duration of over 5 years (1841 days) allowed for substantial project development and execution. 5. The specific NAICS code (541710) points to a focus on research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences. 6. The contract was managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency, a key oversight body for DoD procurements.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $174 million contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable contract data. The CPFF structure, while common in R&D, can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. The contract's duration suggests a substantial scope of work, but the ultimate value for money depends on the successful outcomes of the human effectiveness research. Without detailed performance reports, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing was competitive or if the government received excellent value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' suggesting that the Department of Defense sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of two bids (as indicated by 'no': 2) implies that while competition was sought, the number of actual bidders was limited. This level of competition might not be sufficient to guarantee the most competitive pricing, as a larger pool of bidders typically drives prices down.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the potential for competitive pricing due to the open competition, but the limited number of bidders could mean that the government did not secure the absolute lowest price achievable.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel and defense research institutions, who will gain insights into improving human performance and effectiveness in operational environments. The services delivered are focused on research and development, aiming to advance scientific understanding and technological solutions related to human factors in defense. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, specifically Virginia where the contractor is located, but the research findings could have global defense implications. Workforce implications include employment for researchers, scientists, and support staff within the contracting company and potentially at research facilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if the contractor's estimated costs are inaccurate or if unforeseen issues arise during the research.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may have resulted in a higher price than if more companies had participated.
The long duration of the contract (over 5 years) increases the risk of scope creep or changes in research priorities over time.
Lack of detailed performance data in the provided summary makes it difficult to assess the true effectiveness and value delivered.
The specific nature of R&D contracts means that outcomes are not guaranteed, posing a risk to the investment.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating an effort to maximize the pool of potential offerors.
The contract was awarded to a joint venture (ManTech Geo-Centers JV), which may bring together specialized expertise.
The contract duration allowed for in-depth research and development, potentially leading to significant advancements.
The research area (human effectiveness) is critical for improving military performance and safety.
Managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency, suggesting established oversight processes are in place.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences (NAICS 541710). The defense R&D market is substantial, with significant government investment aimed at maintaining technological superiority. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other DoD contracts for similar R&D services, particularly those focused on human factors, performance enhancement, and operational efficiency. The $174 million total award value places it as a moderately large contract within this specialized segment.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any small business set-aside provisions for this contract. As a large contract awarded to a joint venture, it is unlikely that small businesses were the primary focus, though they may have participated as subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract was managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for overseeing contract performance and ensuring compliance. Oversight mechanisms would typically include regular progress reviews, audits, and performance monitoring. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, though specific performance details might be sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Human Factors Research
Defense Applied Research
Military Performance Enhancement
Operational Effectiveness Studies
Aerospace Research and Development

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Structure
Long Contract Duration
R&D Outcome Uncertainty

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.9 million to MANTECH GEO CENTERS JV. 200111!000051!5700!GR16 !AFRL/MLKH HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS BR!F3361500C6060 !A!N!*!N! !20010228!20060315!007489771!174245993!053518312!N!MANTECH GEO-CENTERS JOINT VENT!12015 LEE JACKSON HIGHWAY !FAIRFAX !NC!22033!26496!600!51!FAIRFAX !FAIRFAX (CITY) !VIRGINIA !+000000826848!N!N!000000000000!AD92!RDTE/OTHER DEFENSE-APPLIED RESEARCH !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541710!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANTECH GEO CENTERS JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-02-28. End: 2006-03-15.

What was the specific nature of the 'Human Effectiveness' research conducted under this contract?

The contract, awarded under NAICS code 541710 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences), focused on 'Human Effectiveness.' While the exact scope is not detailed in the summary, this typically encompasses research aimed at improving the performance, safety, and well-being of military personnel. Areas could include human-computer interaction, cognitive performance enhancement, physiological stress management, human-system integration, training methodologies, and the effects of environmental factors on performance. The goal is to ensure that military personnel can operate at peak efficiency and survivability in complex and demanding operational environments.

How does the $174 million total award value compare to similar DoD contracts for human effectiveness R&D?

The $174 million total award value over approximately five years is a significant sum, indicative of a substantial research program. To benchmark this, one would need to analyze other DoD contracts awarded within the last decade for 'human effectiveness,' 'human factors,' or related R&D categories, particularly those managed by Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) or similar entities. Contracts of this magnitude often involve multi-year efforts with broad objectives. Without access to a detailed database of comparable contracts and their specific deliverables, it's difficult to state definitively if $174 million represents a high, low, or average investment for this type of research. However, it suggests a high priority placed on this area by the awarding agency.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or deliverables expected under this contract?

The provided summary data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or detailed deliverables for this contract. For R&D contracts, KPIs often relate to the successful completion of research phases, the development of prototypes or models, the publication of findings, the achievement of specific performance improvements in simulated environments, or the generation of actionable recommendations for operational improvements. Deliverables would typically include technical reports, research papers, data sets, software, or hardware prototypes. The success of the contract would be measured against the achievement of these objectives within the defined research scope and timeline.

What is the track record of ManTech Geo-Centers JV in performing similar government contracts?

ManTech Geo-Centers JV was the contractor for this $174 million Department of Defense contract. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their past performance on other government contracts, particularly those within the R&D and defense sectors. This would involve looking at contract award histories, past performance reviews (if publicly available), any instances of contract disputes or terminations, and their overall reputation for delivering quality work on time and within budget. ManTech is a known entity in government contracting, but the specific performance of this joint venture on this particular contract would require a deeper dive into contract performance databases and potentially contractor past performance information.

Were there any identified risks or challenges during the performance of this contract, and how were they managed?

The summary data does not explicitly detail risks or challenges encountered during the performance of this contract. However, R&D contracts, especially those with a CPFF structure and long duration, inherently carry risks such as technical feasibility issues, cost overruns, schedule delays, and evolving research requirements. Effective risk management would involve proactive identification of potential problems, development of mitigation strategies, regular progress reviews, and adaptive planning. The limited competition (2 bidders) could also be seen as a potential risk if it led to suboptimal pricing or limited innovative approaches. Without specific reports, it's presumed that the DCMA and the contracting agency managed these risks through standard government oversight procedures.

How did the 'full and open competition' process for this contract ensure value for taxpayers, given only two bids were received?

While 'full and open competition' aims to solicit offers from all responsible sources, the receipt of only two bids suggests that the actual competitive landscape may have been narrower than ideal. In such cases, the value for taxpayers hinges on the quality and competitiveness of those two bids. If both bidders presented strong technical proposals and competitive pricing, the government could still achieve good value. However, a larger number of bidders typically exerts more downward pressure on prices. To fully assess the value, a comparison of the awarded price against independent government cost estimates or market research benchmarks would be necessary. The limited number of bidders might indicate high barriers to entry for this specific type of R&D or a concentrated market.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Alion Science and Technology Corporation (UEI: 119162332)

Address: 12015 LEE JACKSON HIGHWAY, FAIRFAX, NC, 22033

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline