DoD's $10.2M contract for engineering services awarded to Anteon Corporation shows potential for cost savings

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,226,688 ($10.2M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-01-22

End Date: 2008-08-05

Contract Duration: 2,022 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200304!000019!5700!GR17 !ASC/PKN !GS23F0076K !C!N! !Y!FA865203F0006 !20030122!20080126!067641597!067641597!099312725!N!ANTEON CORPORATION !3211 JERMANTOWN RD, STE 70!FAIRFAX !VA!22030!86660!057!39!WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB!GREENE !OHIO !+000001637782!N!N!000000000000!R799!OTHER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541611!E! !6! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! ! ! !A! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Y!C!N!N! ! ! ! ! ! !* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !FA8652!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22030

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC. for work described as: 200304!000019!5700!GR17 !ASC/PKN !GS23F0076K !C!N! !Y!FA865203F0006 !20030122!20080126!067641597!067641597!099312725!N!ANTEON CORPORATION !3211 JERMANTOWN RD, STE 70!FAIRFAX !VA!22030!86660!057!39!WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB!GREEN… Key points: 1. The contract's value of $10.2 million over its lifespan suggests a moderate investment for the services rendered. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, which typically fosters better pricing and value. 3. The contract was awarded as a Time and Materials type, which can introduce cost variability if not managed closely. 4. Performance context is linked to Wright-Patterson AFB, suggesting a focus on established military operational support. 5. The sector positioning is within Engineering Services, a critical area for defense infrastructure and development.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this $10.2 million contract against similar engineering services contracts within the Department of Defense is challenging without more granular data on the specific services provided. However, the Time and Materials (T&M) award type can sometimes lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not carefully monitored for scope creep and labor hour efficiency. The contract duration of approximately 5 years also needs to be considered when evaluating the overall value proposition.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of a competitive process is generally positive for price discovery and ensuring the government receives a fair market price. The specific number of bidders is not detailed in the provided data, but the 'full and open' designation implies a robust competitive environment.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and encouraging a wider pool of contractors to offer their services, potentially leading to better value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense, specifically the Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB, receiving essential engineering support services. The services delivered are categorized under Engineering Services, crucial for maintaining and developing military capabilities. The geographic impact is centered around Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio, supporting its operational and developmental needs. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for engineers and technical staff employed by Anteon Corporation and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Time and Materials (T&M) contract type carries inherent risks of cost overruns if not managed diligently, as it is directly tied to labor hours and material costs.
Lack of specific performance metrics or detailed service descriptions makes it difficult to fully assess the contractor's performance and the true value delivered.
The contract's duration of over 5 years could lead to potential inefficiencies or outdated service delivery if not regularly reviewed and updated.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process that should have resulted in a fair market price.
The contractor, Anteon Corporation, has a track record of performing government contracts, suggesting some level of established capability.
The contract supports a critical defense installation (Wright-Patterson AFB), aligning with national security objectives.

Sector Analysis

The Engineering Services sector is a vital component of the federal procurement landscape, particularly within the Department of Defense. This contract, valued at over $10 million, falls within the typical range for specialized engineering support required for military operations and development. Comparable spending benchmarks in this sector often vary widely based on the complexity and duration of the services, but this contract appears to be a significant, albeit not massive, investment in specialized technical expertise.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and does not explicitly mention subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears limited for this specific award. However, larger prime contractors like Anteon Corporation are often encouraged or required to have small business subcontracting goals on broader contract vehicles, the details of which are not available here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices at Wright-Patterson AFB. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the Time and Materials contract, including labor hour reporting and material cost verification. Transparency is facilitated by the contract being awarded under full and open competition, with its details available through federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense Engineering Services
Air Force Support Contracts
Wright-Patterson AFB Procurement
Time and Materials Contracts
Management Support Services

Risk Flags

Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely managed.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes objective assessment difficult.
Potential for outdated service delivery over a long contract duration.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.. 200304!000019!5700!GR17 !ASC/PKN !GS23F0076K !C!N! !Y!FA865203F0006 !20030122!20080126!067641597!067641597!099312725!N!ANTEON CORPORATION !3211 JERMANTOWN RD, STE 70!FAIRFAX !VA!22030!86660!057!39!WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB!GREENE !OHIO !+000001637782!N!N!000000000000!R799!OTHER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541611!E! !6! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC..

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 $10.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-01-22. End: 2008-08-05.

What was Anteon Corporation's performance history on similar Department of Defense contracts prior to and during this contract's period of performance?

Assessing Anteon Corporation's performance history requires access to detailed contract performance reports (CPARS) and past performance evaluations. Without this specific data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their track record. However, their ability to win a $10.2 million full and open competition contract suggests they met the minimum qualifications and demonstrated some level of capability. Government contractors are typically evaluated on factors such as technical performance, cost control, schedule adherence, and management. A review of their contract portfolio would reveal the types and scale of previous engagements, providing a basis for comparison. Generally, consistent positive past performance is a strong indicator of future success, while a history of issues could signal potential risks.

How does the $10.2 million total contract value compare to the average cost of similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Air Force during the 2003-2008 period?

To compare the $10.2 million contract value, we would need to analyze a dataset of similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Air Force between 2003 and 2008. Key comparison points would include the specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code (541330 for Engineering Services), contract type (Time and Materials), and the scope of work. Without this comparative data, it's challenging to definitively state if $10.2 million is high, low, or average. However, considering the contract duration of approximately five years, the annual value would be around $2 million. This figure seems plausible for specialized engineering support at a major Air Force base like Wright-Patterson AFB, but a formal benchmark analysis against peer contracts would be necessary for a conclusive assessment of value for money.

What were the primary risks identified by the government during the solicitation and award process for this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The provided data does not explicitly detail the risks identified during the solicitation and award process for this specific contract. However, common risks associated with engineering services contracts, especially Time and Materials (T&M) types, include cost overruns due to uncontrolled labor hours or material costs, scope creep, and potential performance deficiencies. For a T&M contract awarded under full and open competition, the government typically mitigates these risks through robust proposal evaluation criteria, including technical approach and past performance, clear statement of work, defined labor categories and rates, and stringent oversight mechanisms for monitoring expenditures and progress. The government would likely have established ceilings for labor hours and materials, and required detailed reporting to ensure accountability and prevent excessive spending.

What specific engineering services did Anteon Corporation provide under this contract, and how did these services contribute to the Air Force's mission at Wright-Patterson AFB?

The contract data indicates the service category as 'OTHER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES' with a primary NAICS code of '541330' (Engineering Services). While the specific breakdown of services is not detailed, this suggests Anteon Corporation likely provided a range of technical and management support functions essential for the Air Force's operations at Wright-Patterson AFB. This could encompass areas such as systems engineering, technical support for aircraft or weapon systems, program management assistance, logistics engineering, or research and development support. These services would contribute to the Air Force's mission by ensuring the effective development, maintenance, and operational readiness of its assets, as well as supporting the complex management functions required at a major installation like Wright-Patterson AFB.

How has federal spending on engineering services, particularly within the Department of Defense, trended since the award of this contract in 2003?

Federal spending on engineering services, especially within the Department of Defense (DoD), has generally seen significant fluctuations and overall growth since 2003, driven by evolving geopolitical landscapes, technological advancements, and modernization efforts. Following the initial period of this contract (2003-2008), which coincided with increased military operations, defense spending saw substantial increases. In subsequent years, while budgets have faced pressures, the need for specialized engineering expertise in areas like cybersecurity, advanced materials, aerospace, and C4ISR systems has continued to drive demand. The DoD consistently represents a large portion of federal engineering service procurements, reflecting its complex technological requirements. Trends often show a shift towards more complex, R&D-intensive, and information technology-integrated engineering services.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 3211 JERMANTOWN RD, FAIRFAX, VA, 11

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS23F0076K

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline