Department of Defense awarded $16.6M for ADP Systems Development Services to Science Applications International Corp
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $16,592,391 ($16.6M)
Contractor: Leidos, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2005-11-15
End Date: 2010-11-14
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $9.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: IT
Official Description: 200610!200336!1700!M67854!COMMANDING GENERAL !GS35F4461G !C!N! !N!M6785406F4900! !20051115!20061114!054781240!054781240!054781240!N!SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATI!10260 CAMPUS POINT DR !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!48376!059!51!MCLEAN !FAIRFAX !VIRGINIA !+000001252285!N!N!000000000000!D302!ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !541512!E! !6! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B!D!Y! ! !A! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !C!N! ! ! ! ! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! !1727!M67854!0001! !
Place of Performance
Location: QUANTICO, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 22134
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $16.6 million to LEIDOS, INC. for work described as: 200610!200336!1700!M67854!COMMANDING GENERAL !GS35F4461G !C!N! !N!M6785406F4900! !20051115!20061114!054781240!054781240!054781240!N!SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATI!10260 CAMPUS POINT DR !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!48376!059!51!MCLEAN !FAIR… Key points: 1. Contract awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 5 years indicates a significant, long-term need for these services. 3. The fixed-price contract type suggests that the government has a clear understanding of the scope and cost. 4. The award was made to a single contractor, Science Applications International Corp. 5. The services fall under ADP Systems Development, a critical area for defense operations. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, a major component of the DoD.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The total award amount of $16.6 million over five years for ADP Systems Development Services appears to be within a reasonable range for the scope of work. However, without specific details on the deliverables and the contractor's performance history on similar contracts, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar IT development contracts within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies would provide a clearer picture of whether the pricing is competitive. The fixed-price nature of the contract suggests a degree of cost certainty for the government.
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 number of bidders is not specified in the provided data, but the fact that it was competed openly suggests that multiple companies likely vied for the contract. This level of competition is generally expected to drive down prices and encourage innovation, leading to better value for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it promotes a more efficient allocation of resources by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to lower costs and higher quality services.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and potentially other branches of the Department of Defense, who will receive ADP systems development services. The services delivered are critical for maintaining and improving the technological infrastructure supporting military operations. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, with the contractor's headquarters located in San Diego, California, and McLean, Virginia. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for IT professionals and developers within Science Applications International Corp. and potentially its subcontractors.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the ADP systems developed.
- Potential for cost overruns if the scope of work expands beyond the initial fixed-price agreement.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical ADP systems development could pose a risk if performance issues arise.
- Limited transparency on the specific technologies and methodologies used in the development process.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
- Fixed-price contract type provides cost predictability for the government.
- Contract duration of five years indicates a stable, long-term commitment to developing essential ADP systems.
- The contractor, Science Applications International Corp., is a well-established entity in the government contracting space.
Sector Analysis
The Information Technology sector, specifically ADP Systems Development, is a crucial area for government operations, particularly within the Department of Defense. This contract represents a portion of the broader federal spending on IT services, which encompasses software development, system integration, and maintenance. The market for these services is highly competitive, with numerous large and small businesses vying for government contracts. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar ADP development contracts within the DoD can vary significantly based on complexity, duration, and specific technological requirements.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications specifically tied to small business set-asides for this particular award. The primary focus was on full and open competition, which typically involves larger prime contractors. The impact on the small business ecosystem would be indirect, potentially through opportunities if Science Applications International Corp. chooses to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses, though this is not mandated by the contract terms.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract structure, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon budget. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense IT Services Contracts
- ADP Systems Development Services
- Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act (FITARA) related spending
- Navy IT Modernization Programs
- Science Applications International Corporation Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for scope creep in development projects.
- Reliance on contractor for critical system development.
- Technological obsolescence of developed systems over time.
- Adequacy of testing and quality assurance processes.
Tags
department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, it-services, systems-development, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, virginia, california, science-applications-international-corp, adp-systems
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $16.6 million to LEIDOS, INC.. 200610!200336!1700!M67854!COMMANDING GENERAL !GS35F4461G !C!N! !N!M6785406F4900! !20051115!20061114!054781240!054781240!054781240!N!SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATI!10260 CAMPUS POINT DR !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!48376!059!51!MCLEAN !FAIRFAX !VIRGINIA !+000001252285!N!N!000000000000!D302!ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !541512!E! !6! ! ! ! ! !999
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is LEIDOS, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $16.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2005-11-15. End: 2010-11-14.
What specific ADP systems were developed or enhanced under this contract, and what was their impact on operational efficiency?
The provided data identifies the contract as being for 'ADP SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES' but does not specify the exact systems developed or enhanced. To assess the impact on operational efficiency, a detailed review of the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), performance reports, and any post-award evaluations would be necessary. These documents would outline the specific objectives, deliverables, and the metrics used to measure success. Without this granular information, it is difficult to quantify the precise benefits derived from the $16.6 million investment beyond the general understanding that improved ADP systems are crucial for modern military operations.
How does the $16.6 million contract value compare to other similar ADP systems development contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy or DoD in the same period?
Comparing the $16.6 million contract value requires access to a broader dataset of similar contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy and the wider Department of Defense during the 2005-2010 period. Factors such as contract duration (5 years), scope of work (ADP Systems Development), and contract type (Firm Fixed Price) are key comparison points. Generally, IT development contracts of this magnitude and duration are substantial investments. A comprehensive analysis would involve benchmarking against contracts with similar North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes (e.g., 541512 - Computer Systems Design Services) to determine if the pricing was competitive within the market at that time. Without specific comparative data, it's challenging to definitively state if this award was high, low, or average.
What was Science Applications International Corporation's (SAIC) track record with the Department of Defense prior to and during this contract period?
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has historically been a major government contractor, particularly within the Department of Defense (DoD). Prior to and during the 2005-2010 period of this contract, SAIC held numerous other contracts across various defense agencies, providing a wide range of services including IT, engineering, and logistics. Their track record would be documented through past performance evaluations within the DoD's contractor performance systems. A review of these evaluations would indicate their history of meeting cost, schedule, and performance requirements on previous engagements. Generally, SAIC's extensive experience suggests a mature understanding of government contracting processes and defense requirements.
What were the primary risks identified for this contract, and how were they mitigated?
Potential risks for an ADP Systems Development contract of this nature could include technical risks (e.g., complexity of integration, evolving technology), schedule risks (e.g., delays in development or testing), cost risks (e.g., underestimation of effort, scope creep), and performance risks (e.g., failure to meet requirements). Given the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type, the primary financial risk is borne by the contractor (SAIC), incentivizing them to manage costs effectively. Mitigation strategies would typically involve detailed project management, regular progress reviews, clear definition of requirements, robust testing protocols, and contingency planning. The specific risks and mitigation plans would be detailed in the contract's Risk Management Plan, which is not publicly available in this data.
How has federal spending on ADP Systems Development Services evolved since this contract was awarded in 2005?
Federal spending on ADP Systems Development Services has significantly evolved since 2005, driven by technological advancements, changing security landscapes, and shifts in government IT strategy. Post-2005, there has been a notable increase in cloud computing adoption, cybersecurity investments, and a push towards agile development methodologies. The total federal IT spending has generally trended upwards, with specific allocations to systems development fluctuating based on agency priorities and budget cycles. The rise of big data analytics, artificial intelligence, and modernizing legacy systems have become increasingly prominent areas of investment, likely shifting the focus and nature of ADP development contracts compared to those awarded in the mid-2000s.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Retail Trade › Electronics and Appliance Stores › Computer and Software Stores
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: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Leidos Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 611641312)
Address: 1710 SAIC DRIVE, ROOM #8032, MCLEAN, VA, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: GS35F4461G
IDV Type: FSS
Timeline
Start Date: 2005-11-15
Current End Date: 2010-11-14
Potential End Date: 2011-09-29 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2014-03-29
More Contracts from Leidos, Inc.
- Science Operation and Maintenance Support for the United States Antarctic Program — $3.1B (National Science Foundation)
- Provide Funding for Clin 302 for Pre-Flight and In-Flight Services. Contract Number Dtfawa-05-C-00031, Lockheed Martin. POP 01/16/08-03/31/08 — $1.9B (Department of Transportation)
- THE Facilities Development and Operations Contract(fdoc) Specifies Technical, Managerial, and Adminstrative Work Needed to Ensure the Availablitity, Integrity, and Reliability of Missionoperations Facilites Supporting National Aeronautics and Space Administration (nasa) Human Space Flight (HSF) Programs Requiring Mission Operations Support. the Objective of This Contract IS to Consolidate Efforts Across the Facilities Covered Under Fodoc in Order to Maximize Synergy for Hardware and Software Development, Modification, Sustaining. Maintenance, Reconfiguration, and Operations for the Purpose of Reducing Cost Without Compromising Facility Functionality and Performance. Nasa Will Collaborate With the Contractor on Developing Procedural and Technical Innovations That Improve Quality, Ensure Customer Satisfaction and Reduce Cost. Mission Operations Facilities Currently Support the Space Shuttle Programand the International Space Station Progra, Including International Partner and Commmercial Visiting Vehicles. Mission Operations Facilities Supporting the Cnstellation Program(cxp) ARE Continuously Under Development in Concert With CXP Formulation and Implementation. Fdoc Applies to the Facilities of These Three Programs, and ANY Other HSF Program Requiring Mission Operations Facility Support. in Addition, Future Mission Operations Facilities and Capabilities ARE Within the Technical Scope of This SOW, and Fdoc Worlk Associated With These Facilities Will BE Enabled Through Idiq — $1.3B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- National Airspace System (NAS) Implementation Support Contract (nisc). Provides Engineering and Technical Support Services to FAA Organizations Responsible for NAS Transformation, Integration and Implementation in the Areas of Implementation and Integration Planning, Transition Planning, Engineering Support, Environmental Support, Automation Support and Other Engineering and Technical Disciplines AS Required. TAS::69 8107::TAS — $1.1B (Department of Transportation)
- Itssc Task Order for Systems — $1.1B (Social Security Administration)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)