Parsons Government Services Inc. awarded $20.8M for engineering services, with a 1095-day duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,798,228 ($20.8M)

Contractor: Parsons Government Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-10-27

End Date: 2009-10-26

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TECHNICAL SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35801, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.8 million to PARSONS GOVERNMENT SERVICES INC for work described as: TECHNICAL SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. The award was made by the Missile Defense Agency, indicating a focus on defense-related engineering. 4. The duration of 1095 days (3 years) provides a stable period for service delivery. 5. The contract was awarded in Alabama, potentially impacting the local economy and workforce. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to engineering services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the engineering services provided and comparable contract data. The fixed-price nature is generally favorable for cost control. However, the raw dollar amount of $20.8 million over three years needs to be assessed against the scope and complexity of the missile defense engineering tasks. Without specific performance metrics or comparisons to similar projects, a definitive value assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The fact that there were 3 bids received suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While competition is generally positive, the number of bidders can influence price discovery. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition as it generally drives down costs through market forces. A competitive process increases the likelihood of securing services at a fair market price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Missile Defense Agency, receiving critical engineering support. Services delivered likely include design, analysis, testing, and integration for missile defense systems. The geographic impact is centered in Alabama, where the contract was performed. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for engineers and technical staff in the Alabama region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's effectiveness beyond meeting basic contract terms.
The specific nature of missile defense engineering can involve highly specialized and potentially costly technologies, impacting overall value.
Limited information on the competitive landscape beyond the number of bidders makes it hard to gauge the full extent of price pressure.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a fair and accessible bidding process.
Firm Fixed Price contract structure aligns incentives for cost control and contractor efficiency.
The contract duration of three years provides stability for both the agency and the contractor, potentially leading to better planning and execution.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting the defense industry's missile defense initiatives. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by national security needs and ongoing technological advancements. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale defense contracts requiring specialized engineering expertise, often awarded through competitive processes to established government contractors.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. The primary contractor, Parsons Government Services Inc., is likely a large business, and any subcontracting would be at their discretion, not mandated by a small business set-aside.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program managers within the Missile Defense Agency. Accountability measures are inherent in the Firm Fixed Price contract type, which penalizes cost overruns for the contractor. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance reporting may be internal to the agency. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Missile Defense Systems
Department of Defense Engineering Contracts
Federal Engineering Services
Aerospace and Defense Industry Spending

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial requirements are not fully defined.
Risk of contractor performance issues impacting critical defense systems.
Dependency on contractor expertise for specialized engineering functions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.8 million to PARSONS GOVERNMENT SERVICES INC. TECHNICAL SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PARSONS GOVERNMENT SERVICES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Missile Defense Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-10-27. End: 2009-10-26.

What specific types of engineering services were provided under this contract?

While the NAICS code 541330 indicates 'Engineering Services,' the specific deliverables for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. Given the awarding agency (Missile Defense Agency), it is highly probable that the services involved complex engineering tasks related to the design, development, testing, integration, or sustainment of missile defense systems. This could encompass areas such as systems engineering, software engineering, hardware engineering, test and evaluation, or specialized analysis related to threat assessment and system performance. Further investigation into contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) or contract performance reports would be necessary for a precise breakdown.

How does the $20.8 million award compare to other missile defense engineering contracts?

Comparing this $20.8 million contract to other missile defense engineering contracts requires access to a broader dataset of similar procurements. However, as a three-year Firm Fixed Price contract, it appears to be a moderately sized award for specialized engineering services within the defense sector. Larger, more complex programs, such as the development of entirely new missile defense platforms or major system upgrades, often involve contracts in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Smaller, more focused efforts, like specific component testing or software updates, might be awarded for amounts significantly less than $20.8 million. This contract likely represents a significant but not top-tier investment in missile defense engineering capabilities.

What are the potential risks associated with this contract for the Missile Defense Agency?

Potential risks for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) include contractor performance issues, where Parsons Government Services Inc. might fail to deliver services meeting the required technical specifications or timelines. Given the Firm Fixed Price nature, there's a risk that the contractor might cut corners on quality to maintain profitability if cost pressures arise. Another risk is the potential for cost growth if unforeseen technical challenges emerge that were not adequately anticipated during the bidding process, although the FFP structure aims to mitigate this. Dependence on a single contractor for critical engineering functions also poses a risk if the contractor experiences financial instability or undergoes significant personnel changes.

What is the historical spending pattern for Parsons Government Services Inc. with the Department of Defense?

To assess historical spending patterns for Parsons Government Services Inc. with the Department of Defense (DoD), one would need to analyze their contract awards over several fiscal years. This specific $20.8 million contract awarded in 2006 is a data point within that history. A comprehensive analysis would involve aggregating all their DoD contracts, identifying trends in contract values, types (e.g., FFP, cost-plus), and the specific agencies or branches they have served. This would reveal if Parsons is a consistent, long-term provider of services to the DoD, if their contract values have generally increased or decreased, and if they specialize in particular types of services or defense programs.

How effective is the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type in managing costs for complex engineering projects like missile defense?

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in managing costs for projects where the scope of work is well-defined and risks can be reasonably estimated. For complex engineering projects like missile defense, FFP shifts the cost risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to control expenses and improve efficiency to maximize profit. This can lead to predictable final costs for the government. However, if the project scope is highly uncertain or prone to significant changes, FFP can lead to contractors building in substantial contingencies, potentially increasing the initial price. It also requires robust government oversight to ensure the contractor doesn't compromise quality to meet the fixed price.

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: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Parsons Corporation (UEI: 030866545)

Address: 25531 COMMERCENTRE DR STE 120, LAKE FOREST, CA, 92630

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $30,875,306

Exercised Options: $22,748,556

Current Obligation: $20,798,228

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS23F0025L

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline