DoD's $17.8M Wired Telecom Contract with Booz Allen Hamilton Faces Scrutiny Over Value and Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,808,420 ($17.8M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-30

End Date: 2015-03-29

Contract Duration: 2,006 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: IT

Official Description: TASK 3

Place of Performance

Location: CHARLOTTESVILLE, ALBEMARLE County, VIRGINIA, 22911

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.8 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: TASK 3 Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton for wired telecommunications services represents a significant expenditure. 2. Competition details are limited, raising questions about price discovery and potential value for taxpayers. 3. The duration and cost-plus award fee structure warrant a closer look at cost control and efficiency. 4. The sector is IT, specifically wired telecommunications, a critical area for defense operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's Cost Plus Award Fee structure, while allowing flexibility, can lead to higher costs if not tightly managed. Benchmarking against similar wired telecommunications contracts is difficult without more granular cost data.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which is positive for price discovery. However, the specific award mechanism and the number of bids received are not detailed, impacting the assessment of competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition suggests an effort to secure fair pricing, but the final taxpayer impact depends on the effectiveness of cost controls within the Cost Plus Award Fee structure.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be exposed to higher costs due to the Cost Plus Award Fee structure if not rigorously overseen. The long duration of the contract (2009-2015) means potential inefficiencies could have compounded over time. Lack of detailed cost breakdowns makes it challenging for the public to assess the true value received for services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 88 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee structure
Long contract duration
Limited transparency on specific costs

Positive Signals

Awarded under Full and Open Competition

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the IT sector, specifically wired telecommunications carriers. Spending in this area is crucial for maintaining secure and reliable communication networks for defense agencies. Benchmarks for similar contracts are highly variable based on scope and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate whether small businesses were involved in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates robust oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and award fees are justified. Without detailed reporting on oversight activities and performance metrics, it's difficult to assess accountability.

Related Government Programs

Wired Telecommunications Carriers
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Information Systems Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure
Lack of detailed cost transparency
Long contract duration may obscure current market value
Limited information on competitive intensity despite 'full and open' award

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.8 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. TASK 3

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-30. End: 2015-03-29.

What specific performance metrics were used to determine award fees for Booz Allen Hamilton under this contract, and how were they aligned with mission objectives?

The contract utilized a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, implying performance metrics were established to guide award fee determinations. These metrics likely focused on factors such as timeliness of delivery, quality of service, and adherence to technical specifications. However, without access to the contract's specific performance work statement and award fee criteria, it's impossible to detail the exact metrics or definitively assess their alignment with the Defense Information Systems Agency's mission objectives.

How did the 'full and open competition' process ensure the most cost-effective solution was selected, given the Cost Plus Award Fee structure?

While 'full and open competition' aims to maximize the pool of potential bidders and encourage competitive pricing, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure introduces complexity. The initial competition likely focused on the offeror's technical approach, management capabilities, and proposed cost-plus fee structure. The CPAF element means the final cost is not fixed, making the 'most cost-effective' determination reliant on effective government oversight and the contractor's performance against defined award criteria throughout the contract's life.

What is the estimated taxpayer savings or loss compared to alternative contract types for similar wired telecommunications services over the contract's lifespan?

Quantifying exact taxpayer savings or loss is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and performance data. A fixed-price contract might have offered more upfront cost certainty but could lack flexibility for evolving requirements. The CPAF structure, while potentially leading to higher costs if poorly managed, aims to incentivize performance. The actual outcome depends heavily on the effectiveness of the government's oversight in controlling costs and ensuring award fees were earned based on superior performance.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Wired and Wireless Telecommunications (except Satellite) › Wired Telecommunications Carriers

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation (UEI: 964725688)

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DRIVE, MCLEAN, VA, 22102

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,808,420

Exercised Options: $17,808,420

Current Obligation: $17,808,420

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91QUZ06D0019

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline