Missile Defense Agency awards $32M contract for facility modifications and sustainment to Amentum Technology, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,044,723 ($32.0M)

Contractor: Amentum Technology, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-05-15

End Date: 2024-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,691 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: ENABLE FACILITY MODIFICATIONS AND SUSTAINMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT MDA MISSION ACTIVITIES AT MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION&OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) AND ITS AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY.

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80912

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $32.0 million to AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, INC. for work described as: ENABLE FACILITY MODIFICATIONS AND SUSTAINMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT MDA MISSION ACTIVITIES AT MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION&OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) AND ITS AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY. Key points: 1. Contract supports critical Missile Defense Integration & Operations Center (MDIOC) activities. 2. Amentum Technology, Inc. secured the award through full and open competition. 3. The contract has a duration of approximately 1691 days, extending through December 2024. 4. This award falls under Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences category. 5. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee, indicating performance-based incentives. 6. No small business set-asides were utilized for this procurement. 7. The base award value is $18.95M, with a potential ceiling of $32.04M.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of $32.04 million over approximately 4.6 years appears reasonable for facility modifications and sustainment supporting a critical national security asset like the MDIOC. Benchmarking against similar facility support contracts for specialized government operations centers is challenging due to unique requirements. However, the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure suggests an effort to align contractor performance with government objectives, potentially leading to better value than fixed-price contracts if managed effectively. The base award of $18.95 million provides initial funding, with the remainder contingent on performance and evolving mission needs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded using full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the use of full and open competition generally fosters a competitive environment, which is expected to drive better pricing and service quality. This approach allows the Missile Defense Agency to select the offer that best meets its technical requirements and offers the most advantageous value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is the most taxpayer-friendly approach, as it maximizes the pool of potential offerors and encourages competitive pricing, thereby reducing the risk of overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the personnel and operations of the Missile Defense Agency, particularly at the MDIOC. The contract delivers essential facility modifications and sustainment services to ensure the operational readiness of critical infrastructure. Geographic impact is focused on the MDIOC's location and its area of responsibility, likely within the United States. The contract supports a workforce involved in specialized facility maintenance, engineering, and technical support roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts if not closely monitored.
Scope creep could increase the final contract value beyond initial projections.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical facility sustainment could pose risks if performance issues arise.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process and potential for competitive pricing.
The CPIF contract type incentivizes contractor performance and efficiency.
Long-term sustainment focus ensures continuity of operations for a vital national security facility.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) operates in a highly specialized segment of the defense industry, requiring unique facilities and infrastructure to support its mission. Spending in this area is driven by national security priorities and technological advancements in missile defense systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would likely be found within other agencies managing complex research and testing facilities, such as NASA or other Department of Defense research arms.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. The award to Amentum Technology, Inc., a large business, suggests that the scale and specialized nature of the required services were deemed best met by a prime contractor of this size. This implies that opportunities for small businesses would likely be through subcontracting tiers if Amentum chooses to engage them, rather than direct set-aside awards.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Missile Defense Agency's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are embedded within the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure, which links contractor payment to performance metrics. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, although specific details of performance and cost are often considered sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Missile Defense Systems
Military Base Operations Support
Facility Engineering and Construction
Research and Development Support Services
Department of Defense Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Potential
Scope Creep Risk
Performance Monitoring Challenges
Contractor Dependency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $32.0 million to AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, INC.. ENABLE FACILITY MODIFICATIONS AND SUSTAINMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT MDA MISSION ACTIVITIES AT MISSILE DEFENSE INTEGRATION&OPERATIONS CENTER (MDIOC) AND ITS AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMENTUM TECHNOLOGY, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $32.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-05-15. End: 2024-12-31.

What is Amentum Technology, Inc.'s track record with the Missile Defense Agency and similar government contracts?

Amentum Technology, Inc. has a significant history of performing complex technical services and facility management for various government agencies, including the Department of Defense. While specific details on their past performance with the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) for this exact type of facility modification and sustainment are not provided in this data snippet, their broader portfolio suggests experience in large-scale engineering, operations, and maintenance contracts. Companies like Amentum often hold numerous contracts across different federal entities, requiring robust project management and technical expertise. A thorough review would involve examining past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) for relevant MDA contracts to assess their reliability, quality of work, and adherence to schedule and budget on similar projects.

How does the awarded price compare to similar facility modification and sustainment contracts for defense installations?

Directly comparing the $32.04 million ceiling for facility modifications and sustainment at the MDIOC to similar contracts is challenging without more specific data on the scope, complexity, and location of comparable projects. Facility support for specialized government operations centers often involves unique security, environmental, and technical requirements that can significantly influence costs. However, the contract's duration of approximately 4.6 years suggests an average annual value of roughly $6.9 million. This figure needs to be evaluated against the specific services rendered, such as infrastructure upgrades, maintenance, and operational support. Benchmarking would ideally involve analyzing contracts for similar critical infrastructure sustainment within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies managing high-security research and operational facilities.

What are the primary risks associated with this Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract structure?

The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract structure revolve around cost control and potential for scope creep. While CPIF aims to incentivize contractor efficiency by sharing cost savings or rewarding performance against targets, it inherently allows for costs to exceed initial estimates, with the government bearing a significant portion. If the incentive targets are not well-defined or if the government's oversight is insufficient, the contractor may not be adequately motivated to control costs, leading to expenditures higher than anticipated. Furthermore, the flexibility in defining scope for facility modifications and sustainment can lead to 'scope creep,' where additional work is added incrementally, driving up the total contract cost beyond the original projections. Effective risk mitigation requires robust government oversight, clear performance metrics, and diligent management of contract modifications.

How effective is the full and open competition process likely to be in ensuring value for taxpayer money on this contract?

The full and open competition process is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for taxpayer money, as it maximizes the number of potential bidders and fosters a competitive environment. By allowing all responsible sources to submit proposals, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) increases the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and innovative solutions. This process encourages offerors to present their best technical approaches and most cost-effective strategies to win the contract. While the specific number of bidders isn't detailed, the commitment to full and open competition suggests that the MDA sought to leverage market forces to achieve optimal value. The subsequent evaluation of proposals based on both technical merit and price is crucial for translating this competitive potential into realized savings and superior performance.

What are the potential implications of the contract's duration and phased funding on program stability and contractor performance?

The contract's duration of approximately 1691 days (about 4.6 years) and its phased funding structure (base award with potential ceiling) have several implications for program stability and contractor performance. A longer duration provides stability for the contractor, allowing for better long-term planning, investment in specialized resources, and retention of skilled personnel dedicated to the MDIOC's mission. This continuity can lead to improved operational efficiency and institutional knowledge. The phased funding, with a base award and a ceiling, offers flexibility to adapt to evolving mission requirements and unforeseen facility needs. However, it also necessitates careful financial management and oversight by the MDA to ensure that expenditures remain justified and aligned with performance objectives. This structure can incentivize the contractor to perform well to achieve the full contract value, but requires diligent monitoring to prevent cost overruns.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: H9500115R0001

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Pae-Parsons Global Logistics Services, LLC

Address: 550 WILLIAM NORTHERN BLVD., TULLAHOMA, TN, 37388

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,016,446

Exercised Options: $33,016,446

Current Obligation: $32,044,723

Actual Outlays: $23,882,252

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 30

Total Subaward Amount: $25,863,647

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HQ079617D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline