Booz Allen Hamilton awarded $26M contract for consulting services, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,983,167 ($26.0M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2017-09-22

End Date: 2019-05-31

Contract Duration: 616 days

Daily Burn Rate: $42.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22030

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $26.0 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract awarded through a sole-source justification, limiting potential for competitive pricing. 2. Significant contract value suggests a need for robust performance monitoring. 3. The 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' category is broad, requiring clarity on specific deliverables. 4. Contract duration of 616 days indicates a substantial, ongoing need for these services. 5. Lack of small business set-aside raises questions about broader economic impact. 6. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure can incentivize cost overruns if not carefully managed.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of approximately $26 million for consulting services warrants a close examination of the pricing structure and deliverables. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) award type, while offering flexibility, can lead to higher costs if the contractor does not efficiently manage expenses. Further analysis would require detailed task orders and performance metrics to assess if the pricing aligns with market rates for similar specialized consulting.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning that only one contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, was solicited. This approach bypasses the standard competitive procurement process, which typically involves soliciting bids from multiple qualified vendors. While sole-source awards are permissible under specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities or urgent needs), they inherently limit price discovery and can potentially lead to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not be getting the best possible price due to the absence of competition. This can result in a less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the agency receiving the consulting services, likely improving operational efficiency or strategic planning. Services delivered fall under 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services,' indicating support for complex analytical or technical challenges. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the agency's operational areas, potentially nationwide depending on the service scope. Workforce implications may include the utilization of highly skilled consultants, potentially augmenting government staff capabilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potentially increases cost to taxpayers.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type may incentivize higher spending if not rigorously overseen.
Broad service category ('Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services') lacks specificity, increasing risk of scope creep or misaligned deliverables.
Absence of small business participation noted, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms in this contract.

Positive Signals

Booz Allen Hamilton is a well-established contractor with significant experience in government consulting.
The contract is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), a reputable agency for federal procurement.
The contract has a defined period of performance, allowing for reassessment of needs upon expiration.

Sector Analysis

The 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' sector is a broad category encompassing a wide range of specialized expertise. This contract likely fits within the government's broader strategy to leverage external expertise for complex challenges. Comparable spending in this sector can vary widely based on the specific services, but large-scale consulting contracts often run into tens of millions of dollars. The market is characterized by a mix of large, established firms and smaller niche providers.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'sb': false. This means that opportunities for small businesses to directly participate as prime contractors were likely limited. While Booz Allen Hamilton may engage small businesses as subcontractors, the absence of a set-aside suggests that the primary focus was not on maximizing small business prime contracting. This could represent a missed opportunity to foster small business growth within this specific procurement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA) and the contracting agency that received the services. As a definitive contract managed by GSA's Federal Acquisition Service, it is subject to standard federal procurement regulations and oversight. Transparency would depend on the public availability of task orders and performance reports, which are not detailed here. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Management and Financial Consulting, Acquisition and Grants Management Support, and Business and Special Management Services
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs)
Strategic Planning and Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type requires careful oversight.
Lack of specific service details in summary data.
No indication of small business participation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $26.0 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-09-22. End: 2019-05-31.

What specific services were provided under this contract, and how were they justified as sole-source?

The contract falls under NAICS code 541690, 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services.' The specific services are not detailed in the provided data. A sole-source justification typically requires demonstrating that only one responsible source is capable of providing the required services, often due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent and compelling circumstances. Without access to the justification document, it's impossible to ascertain the precise reasons why this contract was not competed. This lack of transparency is a key concern for evaluating value for money and taxpayer accountability.

How does the $26 million contract value compare to similar consulting contracts awarded by the GSA or other agencies?

Benchmarking the $26 million contract value requires comparing it to similar 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services' contracts, ideally those awarded by the GSA's Federal Acquisition Service or agencies with similar needs. Given the sole-source nature, a direct price comparison is challenging. However, contracts of this magnitude for specialized consulting typically involve complex projects. Without specific task order details and performance metrics, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents good or fair value. A review of historical GSA contracts within the 541690 NAICS code, particularly those awarded competitively, would provide a more robust benchmark.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for these services?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. The primary risk with CPFF contracts is that they can incentivize the contractor to incur higher costs, as their profit (the fixed fee) remains constant regardless of the total cost. This necessitates robust government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable. Without stringent monitoring of expenditures and performance, there is a risk of cost overruns and reduced value for money for the government. The fixed fee itself should be negotiated based on the complexity and risk involved.

What is Booz Allen Hamilton's track record with similar government consulting contracts?

Booz Allen Hamilton is a large, established government contractor with extensive experience across various sectors, including consulting services. They have a long history of holding numerous federal contracts, many of which are substantial in value. Their track record generally includes successful delivery on complex projects. However, like any large contractor, they may have faced scrutiny or performance issues on specific contracts. A detailed review of their past performance ratings, any past performance issues, and the types of services they have provided under similar contracts would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

What does the absence of a small business set-aside imply for taxpayer value and economic impact?

The absence of a small business set-aside (sb: false) means that the contract was not specifically targeted to encourage participation by small businesses. This can imply that the primary consideration was not maximizing small business opportunities or potentially achieving lower prices through small business competition. While large businesses like Booz Allen Hamilton can be highly capable, small businesses often offer specialized expertise and can drive innovation. From a taxpayer value perspective, it means potentially foregoing the competitive advantages that small businesses might bring. Economically, it represents a missed opportunity to distribute federal contract dollars more broadly within the small business ecosystem.

How does the contract duration (616 days) align with the nature of 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services'?

A contract duration of 616 days (approximately 20 months) suggests a substantial and ongoing need for the consulting services. For 'Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services,' this duration is plausible if the project involves long-term research, development, strategic planning, complex analysis, or implementation support. It implies a project that is not a short-term engagement but rather requires sustained effort and expertise. The alignment depends heavily on the specific tasks outlined in the contract's statement of work, which are not provided here. A shorter duration might be expected for discrete, well-defined tasks, while a longer one suggests a more complex or evolving requirement.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Scientific and Technical Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DR, MCLEAN, VA, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $64,219,044

Exercised Options: $64,219,044

Current Obligation: $25,983,167

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $1,542,644

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline