DoD awards $39.5M engineering services contract to Science Applications International Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,487,323 ($39.5M)

Contractor: Science Applications International Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-09-21

End Date: 2022-12-21

Contract Duration: 1,917 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF THE IS A NEW TASK ORDER.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20301

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $39.5 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF THE IS A NEW TASK ORDER. Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 1917 days indicates a long-term need for these engineering services. 3. The task order is for engineering services, a critical component for defense operations. 4. The award was made by Washington Headquarters Services, a key administrative body within the DoD. 5. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost control but requires careful oversight. 6. The contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, is a large, established entity in the federal contracting space.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $39.5 million over approximately five years averages to about $7.9 million annually. Without specific benchmarks for similar engineering services contracts within the DoD or for Washington Headquarters Services, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type means the government reimburses the contractor for allowable costs plus a fixed fee, which can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently. Further analysis would require comparing the scope of work and deliverables to similar contracts awarded to other large engineering firms.

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 data shows two bids were received. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing competition and achieving fair pricing, the low number of bids (two) might suggest potential limitations in the market for these specific services or the way the solicitation was structured. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more robust price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it theoretically drives down prices through market forces. However, with only two bidders, the potential for significant cost savings may have been limited compared to a scenario with more competitive offers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Department of Defense, which receives essential engineering services. These services likely support various operational, research, and development activities within the DoD. The contract is geographically focused on the District of Columbia, where Washington Headquarters Services is located. The contract supports a large, established contractor, potentially impacting its workforce and the broader engineering services sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type requires diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and the fixed fee is justified.
With only two bids received under full and open competition, there's a question about the extent of market competition achieved.
The long duration of the contract (over five years) necessitates ongoing monitoring to ensure continued alignment with evolving DoD needs and performance standards.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, which is the government's preferred method for maximizing choice and achieving competitive pricing.
The contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, is a well-established entity with a significant track record in federal contracting, suggesting a level of reliability.
The contract is for engineering services, a fundamental requirement for defense operations and modernization.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services represent a significant segment of the federal contracting market, particularly within the Department of Defense. This contract falls under the Engineering Services (NAICS 541330) category. The federal government is a major consumer of engineering expertise, funding projects ranging from infrastructure development to advanced technological research and development. Spending in this sector is often driven by national security requirements, technological advancements, and the need for specialized technical support. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale engineering service contracts awarded by the DoD and other federal agencies to firms of similar size and capability.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Science Applications International Corporation is a large business. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. However, as a large prime contractor, SAIC may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specific components or services, contributing to the broader small business ecosystem, though this is not explicitly detailed in the award data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract would primarily fall under the purview of Washington Headquarters Services and the Department of Defense contracting officers. They are responsible for monitoring the contractor's performance, ensuring compliance with the contract terms, and auditing incurred costs and the fixed fee. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract were suspected or reported.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense - Research and Development
Department of Defense - Professional Services
Washington Headquarters Services - Support Contracts
Engineering Services - Federal Procurement

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Limited number of bidders may reduce competitive pressure.
Long contract duration requires sustained oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $39.5 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. IGF::OT::IGF THE IS A NEW TASK ORDER.

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 (Washington Headquarters Services).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $39.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-09-21. End: 2022-12-21.

What is the track record of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) with the Department of Defense?

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is a major federal contractor with a substantial history of working with the Department of Defense (DoD). They have been awarded numerous contracts across various defense agencies and for a wide range of services, including IT, engineering, logistics, and mission support. SAIC's extensive experience with the DoD suggests a deep understanding of military requirements, procurement processes, and operational environments. Their past performance data, often available through federal procurement databases, would provide specific insights into their success rates, contract values, and the types of services they have delivered. Generally, SAIC is considered a reliable and capable large business prime contractor within the defense sector, often competing for and winning significant contract awards.

How does the $39.5 million value of this contract compare to other engineering services contracts awarded by the DoD?

The $39.5 million value for this engineering services contract awarded to SAIC by Washington Headquarters Services is a significant but not extraordinary amount within the context of large federal procurements, especially for the Department of Defense. The DoD routinely awards contracts in the tens and hundreds of millions, and sometimes billions, for complex engineering and technical services. To benchmark this specific contract's value, one would need to compare it against similar contracts for engineering services awarded by the DoD or other agencies during the same period, considering factors like contract duration, scope of work, and the specific technical expertise required. While $39.5 million over five years represents substantial annual spending, it is likely within the typical range for a large, established contractor like SAIC performing critical engineering functions for a major defense entity.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude?

The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude ($39.5 million) revolve around cost control and contractor incentive. In a CPFF arrangement, the government reimburses the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee. The risk for the government is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs rigorously compared to a fixed-price contract, as cost overruns are generally covered. The fixed fee, while intended to provide profit, could become disproportionately large if the initial cost estimates were inaccurate or if the scope of work expands without adequate adjustments to the fee. Effective risk mitigation requires robust government oversight, detailed cost accounting standards, clear definitions of allowable costs, and diligent monitoring of the contractor's performance and expenditures to ensure the fixed fee remains fair and reasonable relative to the effort expended.

Given the contract is for engineering services, what are potential indicators of program effectiveness?

Indicators of program effectiveness for an engineering services contract like this would focus on the successful delivery of technical solutions, adherence to project timelines, and the impact of the engineering work on the DoD's mission objectives. Key metrics could include the timely completion of design phases, successful testing and validation of prototypes or systems, the accuracy and completeness of technical documentation, and the achievement of specified performance parameters for any systems or processes developed. Furthermore, feedback from end-users within the DoD regarding the usability and effectiveness of the engineered solutions, as well as any cost savings or efficiency improvements realized as a direct result of the contractor's engineering efforts, would serve as strong indicators of program success. Reduced system failures, improved operational readiness, or successful integration of new technologies are also tangible outcomes.

How does the historical spending pattern for engineering services at Washington Headquarters Services inform the analysis of this contract?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for engineering services at Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) can provide valuable context for this $39.5 million contract. If WHS has consistently awarded significant contracts for engineering services, it suggests a sustained and critical need for such support within its operations. Examining past contract values, durations, and the types of engineering services procured can help determine if this current award is in line with historical trends or represents a significant increase or decrease in spending. Furthermore, reviewing the performance and cost-effectiveness of previous engineering contracts awarded by WHS can offer insights into the agency's contracting practices, its ability to manage such agreements, and the typical success rates of its contractors. This historical data can also inform risk assessments and value-for-money evaluations for the current contract.

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: HQ003416R0133

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: $46,606,558

Exercised Options: $46,606,558

Current Obligation: $39,487,323

Actual Outlays: $2,804,048

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 24

Total Subaward Amount: $29,556,664

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HQ003417D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline