GSA's $45M Engineering Services Contract with Peraton Technology Services Inc. awarded via full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $44,993,616 ($45.0M)

Contractor: Peraton Technology Services Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2016-11-07

End Date: 2022-01-31

Contract Duration: 1,911 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CL::IGF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: SUITLAND, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20746

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $45.0 million to PERATON TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC. for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value of $45M over approximately 5 years suggests a significant but not excessive investment for engineering services. 2. Full and open competition indicates a potentially competitive bidding process, which can lead to better pricing. 3. The contract's duration and cost-plus-fixed-fee structure warrant scrutiny for potential cost overruns. 4. Performance context is limited without specific deliverables or performance metrics, making a definitive value assessment difficult. 5. Engineering Services (NAICS 541330) is a broad category, and the specific nature of these services impacts comparability. 6. The contract was awarded by the General Services Administration (GSA), a major federal procurement agency.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $44,993,616.39 over roughly 5 years averages to approximately $9M annually. Without specific details on the scope of engineering services provided, it is challenging to benchmark this against similar contracts. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed tightly, as the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee. Further analysis would require understanding the specific services rendered and comparing them to industry standards and other government contracts for similar engineering support.

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. With 7 bidders identified, this suggests a reasonably competitive landscape for this procurement. A higher number of bidders generally correlates with more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria would provide further insight into the effectiveness of this competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through a wide range of offers, potentially driving down costs compared to less competitive methods.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring specialized engineering and technical services, enhancing their operational capabilities. Services delivered under this contract support various engineering disciplines, contributing to the development and maintenance of government projects. The contract's geographic impact is centered in Maryland (ST: MD), suggesting a focus on supporting federal installations or projects within that region. Workforce implications include the employment of engineers and technical specialists by Peraton Technology Services Inc. and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not rigorously monitored.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value and effectiveness of the services provided.
The broad nature of 'Engineering Services' requires further detail to understand the specific risks associated with the tasks performed.
Contract duration of over 5 years necessitates ongoing oversight to ensure continued relevance and cost-efficiency.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that could yield favorable pricing.
Multiple bidders (7) indicate a healthy level of interest and potential for diverse solutions.
The contract is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), an experienced procurement agency.
The fixed fee component in the CPFF structure provides some level of cost predictability for the government.

Sector Analysis

The Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330) is a substantial part of the federal procurement landscape, encompassing a wide range of technical and design support for government projects. This contract fits within the broader category of professional services procured by federal agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific engineering disciplines involved, such as aerospace, civil, electrical, or mechanical engineering. The total award of approximately $45M over five years places it as a mid-sized contract within this sector.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SB: false) and there is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting requirements. This suggests that the primary focus was on large business prime contractors. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless Peraton Technology Services Inc. actively engages small businesses as subcontractors. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to fully assess the impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the purview of the General Services Administration (GSA), which is responsible for managing federal procurement. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract is suspected or reported.

Related Government Programs

GSA Federal Supply Schedule Contracts
Engineering and Technical Services
Professional Services Contracts
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts
Defense Engineering Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF structure.
Lack of specific performance metrics hinders value assessment.
Broad scope of 'Engineering Services' requires further definition.
Limited transparency on subcontracting to small businesses.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $45.0 million to PERATON TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC.. IGF::CL::IGF SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PERATON TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $45.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-11-07. End: 2022-01-31.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract, and how do they align with Peraton's core competencies?

The contract falls under NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services), a broad category. Without specific task orders or statements of work, it's difficult to detail the exact services. However, Peraton Technology Services Inc. generally offers a range of solutions including cyber, intelligence, space, and defense solutions, often involving complex engineering and technical support. It's reasonable to infer that this contract supported one or more of these areas for GSA or its client agencies. The alignment with Peraton's competencies would be strong if the services involved areas like systems engineering, technical consulting, or specialized design relevant to national security or government IT infrastructure.

How does the average annual cost of $9M compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by GSA or other agencies?

Benchmarking the average annual cost of $9M requires a detailed comparison against contracts with similar scope, complexity, and duration within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330). GSA procures a vast array of services, and the specific nature of these engineering services (e.g., R&D support, infrastructure design, IT systems engineering) is crucial for a valid comparison. Contracts for highly specialized or mission-critical engineering support often command higher prices. Without knowing the specific deliverables and the level of expertise required, a direct comparison is difficult. However, for general engineering support, $9M annually could be considered moderate to high, warranting scrutiny of the value delivered.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of this contract, and has Peraton met them?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance evaluation reports for this contract. Typically, KPIs for engineering services contracts would relate to factors such as on-time delivery of milestones, adherence to technical specifications, quality of deliverables, cost control (especially relevant for CPFF), and customer satisfaction. To assess Peraton's performance, one would need access to contract performance reports, CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) data, or GSA's internal evaluations. Without this information, it's impossible to determine if Peraton has met its contractual obligations effectively.

What is the historical spending trend for engineering services under GSA, and does this contract represent an increase or decrease?

Analyzing historical spending trends for engineering services under GSA requires accessing comprehensive procurement data over several fiscal years. GSA's overall spending fluctuates based on agency needs and budget allocations. To determine if this $45M contract represents an increase or decrease, we would need to compare its total value and duration against previous GSA procurements for similar engineering services. GSA's role as a shared services provider means its spending patterns can be indicative of broader federal demand for specific services. A trend analysis would reveal if GSA is increasing or decreasing its reliance on external engineering support.

Given the CPFF structure, what measures are in place to prevent cost overruns and ensure the fixed fee remains appropriate?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure requires robust oversight to manage costs effectively. Measures typically include detailed cost accounting standards, regular audits of incurred costs, negotiation of a fair and reasonable fixed fee based on anticipated effort and risk, and clear limitations on allowable costs. GSA contracting officers would monitor expenditures closely, review contractor cost proposals, and ensure that the contractor operates within the defined scope to prevent scope creep that could inflate costs. The fixed fee itself is negotiated upfront and should reflect the contractor's profit for the effort, incentivizing efficiency rather than just cost accumulation.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: ID01150067

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C. (UEI: 078628925)

Address: 15050 CONFERENCE CTR DR, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $112,207,982

Exercised Options: $68,166,467

Current Obligation: $44,993,616

Actual Outlays: $3,893,535

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $39,875,794

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline