Defense contract for miscellaneous training support awarded to Science Applications International Corporation for over $33.9 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,906,040 ($33.9M)

Contractor: Science Applications International Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-03-02

End Date: 2024-01-25

Contract Duration: 5,077 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING SUPPORT FOR SOF

Place of Performance

Location: ANDOVER, ESSEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01810

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $33.9 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for work described as: MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING SUPPORT FOR SOF Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the long duration and cost-plus fixed fee structure, which can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open competition, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Risk indicators include the cost-plus fixed fee contract type and the extended performance period, which may increase cost uncertainty. 4. Performance context is for miscellaneous training support, a broad category that requires clear deliverables and performance metrics. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the Engineering Services NAICS code, often associated with complex technical support. 6. The contract's duration of over 5000 days warrants scrutiny regarding the necessity of such a long-term engagement for training support.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $33.9 million over approximately 14 years suggests an average annual spend of around $2.4 million. Without specific benchmarks for 'miscellaneous training support for SOF,' it's difficult to definitively assess value. However, cost-plus fixed fee contracts can sometimes lead to higher costs than fixed-price contracts if cost controls are not robust. The number of delivery orders (2) is low, which might indicate a stable, ongoing need or limited tasking within the contract.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This suggests a robust bidding environment. However, the data does not specify the number of bids received, which is crucial for understanding the actual level of competition and its impact on pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation. However, the ultimate benefit depends on the number of actual bidders and the effectiveness of the government's negotiation.

Public Impact

Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel are the primary beneficiaries, receiving essential training support. The services delivered are categorized as 'miscellaneous training support,' implying a range of specialized training activities. The contract is managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency, indicating a focus on defense-related operations. Workforce implications are likely related to specialized training instructors and support staff, potentially requiring unique skill sets.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus fixed fee contract type can lead to cost escalations if not managed tightly.
The extended contract duration (over 14 years) raises questions about the long-term necessity and potential for scope creep.
Lack of detail on specific training outcomes makes it difficult to assess performance effectiveness.
The broad 'miscellaneous training support' category could mask inefficiencies or a lack of focused objectives.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a potentially competitive pricing environment.
The contract is managed by a specialized agency (DCMA), implying oversight for defense contracts.
The contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, is a large, established entity with significant federal contracting experience.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), which encompasses firms providing engineering consulting and design services. The federal government is a major consumer of these services, particularly for defense, infrastructure, and research projects. Spending in this sector is often characterized by long-term engagements, complex technical requirements, and significant contract values. Benchmarking this specific training support contract against broader engineering services spending is challenging due to its specialized nature.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large contract awarded to a major defense contractor, it is unlikely to have significant direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless specifically mandated or pursued by the prime contractor. The focus appears to be on large-scale support rather than fostering small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight is likely provided by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance on behalf of the Department of Defense. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's terms, including performance metrics and financial reporting. Transparency is generally moderate for defense contracts, with information available through federal procurement databases, but specific operational details may be classified or sensitive.

Related Government Programs

Special Operations Forces Training Programs
Defense Contractor Support Services
Engineering and Technical Services
Federal Training and Education Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost-Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires close monitoring to ensure cost control.
Extended contract duration may lead to outdated services or increased costs over time.
Broad 'miscellaneous training support' category lacks specific performance metrics in summary data.
Potential for reduced competition if specialized skills limit the bidder pool despite 'full and open' status.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $33.9 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. MISCELLANEOUS TRAINING SUPPORT FOR SOF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $33.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-03-02. End: 2024-01-25.

What is the track record of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in delivering similar training support services to the Department of Defense?

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has a long and extensive history of contracting with the Department of Defense (DoD) across a wide array of services, including training, simulation, and technical support. SAIC is a major federal contractor known for its capabilities in IT, engineering, and mission support. While specific performance metrics for this particular 'miscellaneous training support' contract are not detailed in the provided data, SAIC's general track record suggests they possess the organizational capacity and expertise to handle complex defense contracts. However, the success of any specific contract hinges on detailed performance reviews, delivery orders, and adherence to contract terms, which are not fully elaborated here. Past performance reviews and contract award histories available through federal procurement databases would offer a more granular view of their specific successes and challenges in similar training roles.

How does the cost-plus fixed fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for similar training services in terms of value for money?

The Cost-Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined, or when there is a high degree of uncertainty in the costs involved, such as in research and development or complex services like specialized training. For taxpayers, CPFF contracts can present a higher risk of cost overruns compared to fixed-price contracts, as the government ultimately reimburses the contractor's allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. While the fixed fee provides some incentive for the contractor to control costs (as it doesn't increase with higher expenses), the primary incentive for efficiency is weaker than in fixed-price arrangements. For 'miscellaneous training support,' where requirements might evolve, CPFF can offer flexibility. However, rigorous oversight, detailed cost tracking, and clear performance metrics are essential to ensure value for money and prevent excessive spending. Fixed-price contracts, if feasible for the defined scope, generally offer better cost certainty for the government.

What are the primary risks associated with the extended duration of this contract (over 5000 days)?

The extended duration of this contract, exceeding 14 years, introduces several significant risks. Firstly, it increases the likelihood of cost escalation due to inflation, changes in labor rates, and potential unforeseen technological or operational shifts over such a long period. Secondly, the prolonged timeframe can lead to 'scope creep,' where the contract's objectives may gradually expand beyond the original intent without adequate re-evaluation or competitive bidding, potentially diminishing value for money. Thirdly, maintaining consistent performance quality and relevance of training over such an extended period can be challenging; training needs and methodologies may evolve rapidly, making the contracted services potentially outdated if not actively managed and updated. Lastly, long-duration contracts can reduce opportunities for other contractors to compete for evolving training needs, potentially stifling innovation and competition in the long run.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' designation in ensuring competitive pricing for specialized defense training services?

The 'full and open competition' designation is a crucial procedural step designed to maximize the pool of potential bidders and thereby foster competitive pricing. It mandates that all responsible sources are allowed to submit proposals. However, the effectiveness of this designation in ensuring competitive pricing is contingent on several factors not detailed in the basic award data. These include the number of proposals actually received, the technical qualifications required (which might limit the number of capable bidders), and the government's negotiation strategy. For specialized defense training, the market might be limited to a few highly capable firms, meaning that even with full and open competition, the number of actual bidders might be small, potentially leading to less aggressive pricing than in broader markets. Therefore, while 'full and open' is a necessary condition for robust competition, it does not guarantee it.

What are the implications of this contract's spending pattern (e.g., $33.9M over ~14 years) on overall federal spending for defense training?

A contract of $33.9 million spread over approximately 14 years translates to an average annual expenditure of roughly $2.4 million for miscellaneous training support. This figure, while substantial, needs to be contextualized within the broader federal defense budget, which runs into hundreds of billions of dollars annually. This specific contract represents a small fraction of the total defense training expenditure. However, the cumulative spending on numerous such contracts across different agencies and service branches significantly contributes to the overall federal outlay for training. Analyzing this contract's spending pattern helps in understanding the long-term financial commitments the government makes for specialized support services and highlights the importance of efficient contract management and performance evaluation to ensure these funds are used effectively over extended periods.

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

Solicitation ID: N0002410R3022

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12010 SUNSET HILLS RD, RESTON, VA, 20190

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $35,318,497

Exercised Options: $35,222,650

Current Obligation: $33,906,040

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017804D4119

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline