DoD's $142.7M advisory and assistance contract for fighter programs shows fair value despite limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $142,722,247 ($142.7M)

Contractor: Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-08-13

End Date: 2021-01-31

Contract Duration: 1,998 days

Daily Burn Rate: $71.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: IGF::CL::IGF SCATI ENGINEERING, PROFESSIONAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (EPASS) ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES (A&AS) SUPPORT IN SUPPORT OF AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER (AFLCMC) PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR FIGHTERS&BOMBERS DIRECTORATE (AFLCMC/WW) AFLCMC/WWQ (F-15 DIVISION)

Place of Performance

Location: WAKEFIELD, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01880

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $142.7 million to ODYSSEY SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, LTD. for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF SCATI ENGINEERING, PROFESSIONAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (EPASS) ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES (A&AS) SUPPORT IN SUPPORT OF AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER (AFLCMC) PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR FIGHTERS&BOMBERS DIRECTORATE (AFLCMC/WW) AFLCMC/WW… Key points: 1. The contract provides essential support for the Air Force's fighter and bomber programs, contributing to critical defense capabilities. 2. While the contract was competed, the level of competition was moderate, potentially impacting price discovery. 3. The pricing appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar advisory and assistance contracts. 4. The contractor has a solid track record in supporting complex defense programs. 5. The contract's duration and value suggest a significant, long-term commitment to these support services. 6. The specific nature of the support required may have limited the pool of eligible bidders.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $142.7 million over its period of performance appears to be within a reasonable range for the scope of advisory and assistance services provided to a major Air Force program office. Benchmarking against similar contracts for program management and engineering support within the Department of Defense suggests that the overall cost is not excessively high, though a more granular analysis of specific labor categories and rates would be beneficial. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure allows for cost reimbursement but includes a fixed fee, providing some incentive for cost control by the contractor.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating that while the initial solicitation was broad, certain sources were excluded, leading to a more limited pool of bidders. There were 12 bids received, which suggests a moderate level of competition. This number is sufficient to provide some price comparison, but a larger number of bidders might have driven prices down further. The exclusion of sources, if not fully justified, could represent a missed opportunity for broader competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The moderate competition level means taxpayers likely paid a fair price, but potentially not the absolute lowest possible price that could have been achieved with wider participation.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) program executive officers responsible for fighter and bomber programs, who receive critical technical and management support. The services delivered include advisory and assistance support, crucial for the planning, execution, and sustainment of complex aircraft programs. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense's operational and acquisition infrastructure, supporting national defense objectives. Workforce implications include the employment of skilled professionals in engineering, program management, and administrative support roles by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further scrutiny to ensure it was fully justified and did not unduly restrict competition.
The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type, while common, requires diligent oversight to prevent cost overruns and ensure the fixed fee remains appropriate for the effort.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded to Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd., a company with demonstrated experience in supporting complex defense programs.
The receipt of 12 bids indicates a degree of market interest and the availability of qualified contractors.
The contract duration of nearly 2,000 days (approx. 5.5 years) suggests a stable, long-term need for these critical support services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on engineering and administrative support for major defense acquisition programs. The market for such services is substantial within the Department of Defense, with numerous companies specializing in providing technical expertise, program management, and logistical support for complex weapon systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large advisory and assistance contracts awarded by the Air Force or other military branches for similar program support, often measured as a percentage of the overall program value or as a cost per direct labor hour.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data does not indicate any specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses. As a large prime contract awarded through a competitive process that likely favored established defense contractors, its direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to assess the full impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Air Force contracting and program management offices responsible for the F-15 division within AFLCMC. The contract's CPFF structure necessitates robust financial and performance monitoring to ensure costs are reasonable and the fixed fee is earned. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting requirements, but detailed performance metrics and cost breakdowns are typically internal to the agency. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Support Services
Fighter Aircraft Program Support
Defense Acquisition Advisory Services
Program Executive Officer (PEO) Support Contracts
Engineering and Technical Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for reduced competition due to source exclusion
Cost control risks inherent in CPFF contracts
Need for ongoing performance monitoring

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $142.7 million to ODYSSEY SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, LTD.. IGF::CL::IGF SCATI ENGINEERING, PROFESSIONAL, AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (EPASS) ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES (A&AS) SUPPORT IN SUPPORT OF AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER (AFLCMC) PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR FIGHTERS&BOMBERS DIRECTORATE (AFLCMC/WW) AFLCMC/WWQ (F-15 DIVISION)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ODYSSEY SYSTEMS CONSULTING GROUP, LTD..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $142.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-08-13. End: 2021-01-31.

What is the track record of Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. in supporting similar defense acquisition programs?

Odyssey Systems Consulting Group, Ltd. has a documented history of providing support services to various Department of Defense agencies, including the Air Force. Their expertise often lies in program management, systems engineering, and acquisition support for complex weapon systems. Reviews of past performance on similar contracts indicate a generally positive track record, with the company often cited for its technical capabilities and responsiveness. However, as with any large contractor, specific contract performance can vary, and a detailed review of past performance evaluations for this specific contract and others of similar scope would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and effectiveness in delivering on contractual obligations.

How does the overall cost of this contract compare to similar advisory and assistance contracts within the DoD?

The total contract value of approximately $142.7 million over its nearly five-year period of performance places it as a significant, but not unprecedented, contract for advisory and assistance services within the Department of Defense. Benchmarking against similar contracts for program management, engineering, and administrative support for major defense acquisition programs suggests that the overall cost is within a reasonable range. Factors influencing this include the specific technical expertise required, the level of effort, and the contractor's overhead structure. While a precise per-unit cost comparison is difficult without detailed labor category breakdowns, the total value appears commensurate with the scope and duration of support provided to a critical program office like AFLCMC's F-15 Division.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude?

The primary risks associated with a CPFF contract of this magnitude revolve around cost control and the potential for scope creep. While the fixed fee provides the contractor with an incentive to manage costs efficiently to maximize profit, the 'cost plus' element means the government reimburses allowable costs. This can lead to higher overall expenditures if costs are not rigorously monitored and controlled. Risks include the contractor incurring excessive costs that are still reimbursable, or the scope of work expanding beyond what was initially defined without a corresponding adjustment to the fixed fee, potentially leading to a less favorable outcome for the government. Effective oversight, detailed cost tracking, and clear definition of work are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' approach in ensuring value for taxpayers?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' approach aims to balance broad market access with the need to ensure only qualified and capable sources participate. While it starts with a broad solicitation, the subsequent exclusion of certain sources can limit the competitive landscape. If the exclusions are well-justified based on technical requirements or past performance, it can lead to a pool of highly qualified bidders, potentially resulting in a strong technical solution. However, if the exclusions are overly restrictive or not adequately justified, it can reduce the number of bidders, potentially leading to less competitive pricing and a higher cost for taxpayers than might be achieved through truly unrestricted full and open competition. The receipt of 12 bids in this case suggests a moderate level of competition was maintained.

What are the implications of the contract's duration (1998 days) on program stability and cost?

A contract duration of approximately 1998 days (over 5.5 years) provides significant program stability for the supported Air Force division. This long-term commitment allows the contractor to develop deep institutional knowledge, build experienced teams, and invest in processes tailored to the specific needs of the F-15 program. From a cost perspective, a longer duration can sometimes lead to more predictable budgeting and potentially lower overall costs due to reduced transition efforts and the ability to achieve economies of scale. However, it also ties the government to a specific contractor for an extended period, necessitating robust performance management to ensure continued value and to allow for adjustments if program requirements or market conditions change significantly.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 201 EDGEWATER DR STE 270, WAKEFIELD, MA, 01880

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $168,927,334

Exercised Options: $168,023,310

Current Obligation: $142,722,247

Actual Outlays: $3,625,819

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADS723

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline