DHS awards $160M engineering services contract to Carter and Burgess Inc. for T.S.A. support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,966,406 ($16.0M)

Contractor: Carter and Burgess Incorporated

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2007-09-12

End Date: 2010-02-21

Contract Duration: 893 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TBD- CHECKPOINT SITE SURVEYS

Place of Performance

Location: FORT WORTH, TARRANT County, TEXAS, 76102

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $16.0 million to CARTER AND BURGESS INCORPORATED for work described as: TBD- CHECKPOINT SITE SURVEYS Key points: 1. Contract value of $159.7M for engineering services represents a significant investment in transportation security infrastructure. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests a clear scope and budget, potentially mitigating cost overruns. 3. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad market search and potential for competitive pricing. 4. The contract duration of 893 days (approx. 2.5 years) allows for sustained support and project continuity. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to a focus on engineering services for infrastructure projects. 6. The contract was awarded as a delivery order, suggesting it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle or framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

Benchmarking the value of this $159.7M contract requires understanding the specific engineering services rendered. However, the firm fixed-price structure is generally favorable for cost control. Comparing it to similar contracts for transportation security engineering services would provide a more precise value assessment. The number of bids received under full and open competition can also indicate if the pricing was competitive.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The solicitation likely involved a comprehensive review of proposals based on predefined criteria. The fact that it was competed broadly suggests that the government sought the best value from the available market.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and improve the quality of services offered.

Public Impact

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is the primary beneficiary, receiving engineering support for its critical infrastructure. Services delivered likely include design, planning, and technical consultation related to transportation security systems and facilities. The contract's geographic impact is centered in Texas, where the contractor is based, but the services may support TSA operations nationwide. The contract supports the engineering workforce, potentially creating or sustaining jobs within the professional services sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if the initial requirements were not precisely defined.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical engineering services could pose a risk if performance falters.
The specific nature of 'checkpoint site surveys' needs further clarification to assess its full impact and necessity.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty.
The contract duration allows for sustained project execution and continuity of services.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services, particularly those supporting government infrastructure and security, form a significant segment of the professional services market. NAICS code 541330 encompasses firms providing engineering consulting and design services. Spending in this sector is often driven by federal investments in infrastructure upgrades, modernization, and specialized security requirements, such as those of the TSA.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements for this contract. Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses is not evident from this award alone. Further investigation into the prime contractor's subcontracting plan would be necessary to assess potential opportunities for small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Homeland Security's procurement and program management offices, with specific oversight likely managed by the Transportation Security Administration. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability. Transparency would be enhanced by public contract databases and reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Department of Homeland Security Contracts
Transportation Security Administration Procurement
Engineering Services Contracts
Federal Infrastructure Support

Risk Flags

Contract Value
Contract Duration
Competition Level
Contract Type

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $16.0 million to CARTER AND BURGESS INCORPORATED. TBD- CHECKPOINT SITE SURVEYS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CARTER AND BURGESS INCORPORATED.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-12. End: 2010-02-21.

What specific engineering services were performed under this contract, and how did they contribute to TSA's mission?

The contract primarily involved engineering services, with a specific mention of 'checkpoint site surveys.' These services likely entailed assessing existing TSA security checkpoints, identifying areas for improvement, providing design recommendations, and potentially overseeing the implementation of new security technologies or infrastructure modifications. The contribution to TSA's mission would be enhancing the efficiency, effectiveness, and security of passenger and baggage screening processes at airports and other transportation hubs. The 'checkpoint site surveys' suggest a focus on operational analysis and physical infrastructure assessment to ensure compliance with security standards and to optimize passenger flow.

How does the $159.7 million contract value compare to typical spending for similar engineering services by the TSA or DHS?

Determining if $159.7 million is typical requires a benchmark against similar contracts for engineering services within the TSA or broader DHS. Without access to a comprehensive database of comparable contracts, a direct comparison is difficult. However, large-scale infrastructure and security system upgrades or ongoing support for a federal agency like the TSA can often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. The value suggests a substantial, multi-year engagement likely involving significant project management and technical expertise, consistent with major federal procurements in the security and infrastructure domain.

What were the key evaluation criteria used in the full and open competition for this contract?

While the specific evaluation criteria are not detailed in the provided data, typical criteria for full and open competition for engineering services contracts of this magnitude often include factors such as technical approach, past performance, management capability, and price. The government would have sought proposals that demonstrated a clear understanding of TSA's needs, a robust plan for service delivery, a proven track record of successful project completion, and a competitive price. The relative weighting of these factors would have been outlined in the solicitation (e.g., Request for Proposal - RFP).

What is the track record of Carter and Burgess Incorporated in performing federal contracts, particularly for the Department of Homeland Security?

Carter and Burgess Incorporated (now part of AECOM) has a history of performing federal contracts, including work for various government agencies. Information on their specific track record with DHS and TSA would typically be available through federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS. Their experience likely spans various engineering disciplines relevant to infrastructure, transportation, and security projects. A review of their past performance ratings and contract history would provide insight into their reliability and capability in delivering services to federal clients.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract of this size and duration?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor assumes most of the cost risk. If Carter and Burgess underestimated costs or encountered unforeseen challenges, their profit margin could be significantly reduced, potentially impacting their motivation or ability to deliver. Conversely, if they accurately estimated or found efficiencies, they could realize a substantial profit. For the government, the risk is ensuring that the fixed price adequately covers the required scope and quality, and that the contractor remains incentivized to perform well throughout the contract duration. Scope creep is also a risk; if the government requires additional work beyond the original scope, it could lead to contract modifications and potential cost increases.

How does the NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services) align with the services provided to the Transportation Security Administration?

The NAICS code 541330, 'Engineering Services,' is highly appropriate for services provided to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA's mission involves securing transportation systems, which often requires significant engineering expertise for designing, upgrading, and maintaining security infrastructure, technology integration, and operational facilities. This includes aspects like airport security checkpoints, baggage screening systems, command centers, and related facilities. Engineering firms under this code provide the technical analysis, design, planning, and project management necessary to support these complex security requirements, ensuring that TSA's physical and technological assets are robust and effective.

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

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc (UEI: 074103508)

Address: 777 MAIN ST, FORT WORTH, TX, 76102

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,703,367

Exercised Options: $16,703,367

Current Obligation: $15,966,406

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSTS0405DDEP003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline