Over $21.8M Awarded to Science Applications International Corporation for Mission Systems and Sensors Support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,898,413 ($21.9M)

Contractor: Science Applications International Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-06-19

End Date: 2011-08-19

Contract Duration: 1,887 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE MISSION SYSTEMS AND SENORS (MSS) TEAM OF PMA209

Place of Performance

Location: PATUXENT RIVER, SAINT MARYS County, MARYLAND, 20670

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.9 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for work described as: SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE MISSION SYSTEMS AND SENORS (MSS) TEAM OF PMA209 Key points: 1. Contract awarded for engineering services supporting mission systems and sensors. 2. Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is the primary contractor. 3. The contract was awarded under full and open competition. 4. This is a delivery order with a duration of approximately 5 years. 5. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, indicating potential for cost overruns. 6. The contract is managed by the Department of the Navy. 7. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541330 for Engineering Services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of over $21.8 million for engineering services is substantial. Without specific benchmarks for similar mission systems and sensors support contracts, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can sometimes lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly, as it allows the contractor to recover costs plus a fixed fee. Further analysis would require comparing the labor rates and overhead applied to this contract against industry standards and other government contracts for comparable services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The fact that it was competed openly is a positive sign for price discovery and potentially achieving a competitive price. However, the number of bidders is not specified, which would provide more insight into the actual level of competition. A robust competition typically involves several qualified bidders vying for the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation from multiple contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy's Mission Systems and Sensors (MSS) team, receiving critical engineering support. Services delivered include technical expertise for the development, integration, and sustainment of mission systems and sensors. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around naval facilities and operational areas where these systems are deployed or managed. Workforce implications include employment for engineers and technical specialists within SAIC and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type may lead to less cost certainty for the government.
Limited information on the number of bidders in the full and open competition.
The duration of the contract (over 5 years) requires ongoing monitoring for performance and cost control.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process.
Contract supports critical mission systems and sensors for the Department of the Navy.
Science Applications International Corporation is a large, established government contractor with significant experience.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting defense-related mission systems and sensors. The defense engineering services market is substantial, with significant government spending allocated to research, development, and sustainment of advanced technological systems. SAIC operates within this competitive landscape, often bidding on complex, high-value contracts that require specialized technical expertise. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing it to other engineering support contracts for similar defense platforms or systems.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside criterion for this specific contract award. This suggests that the primary focus was on obtaining the best technical solution from a large, capable contractor. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which would be a key area to investigate for potential impacts on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Navy's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract's performance work statement and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Contracts
Defense Engineering Services
Mission Systems Support
Sensor Technology Development
PMA209 Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Limited information on the number of bidders in the competitive process.
Contract duration extends over several years, necessitating ongoing performance monitoring.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.9 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. SERVICES TO SUPPORT THE MISSION SYSTEMS AND SENORS (MSS) TEAM OF PMA209

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 (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-06-19. End: 2011-08-19.

What is the track record of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in delivering similar engineering services for defense mission systems?

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has a long and extensive track record of providing engineering, scientific, and technology integration services to the U.S. Department of Defense and other federal agencies. For mission systems and sensors, SAIC has been involved in numerous programs across various branches of the military, including the Navy. Their experience often spans the entire lifecycle of complex systems, from initial concept development and design through integration, testing, deployment, and sustainment. This includes work on platforms, communication systems, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, and advanced sensor technologies. Their history suggests a capacity to handle large, complex contracts like the one detailed, often involving significant technical challenges and stringent performance requirements. However, like any large contractor, specific performance on individual contracts can vary, and a detailed review of past performance metrics and any past issues would be necessary for a complete assessment.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure compare to other contract types for this type of service, and what are the implications for value?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined, or when there is a high degree of uncertainty in the costs associated with performance. In this structure, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing their profit. Compared to fixed-price contracts (like Firm-Fixed Price or Fixed-Price Incentive), CPFF offers less cost certainty for the government, as the final cost can fluctuate based on actual expenses. However, it can be advantageous when innovation or flexibility is paramount, and the government wants to encourage the contractor to explore solutions without being overly constrained by a fixed price. For engineering services supporting mission systems and sensors, where technological evolution and unforeseen challenges are common, CPFF can facilitate adaptation. The key implication for value is that the government must have robust oversight mechanisms to ensure costs are reasonable and allowable, and that the fixed fee adequately compensates the contractor for the risk and effort involved without being excessive.

What are the potential risks associated with a CPFF contract for mission systems and sensors support, and how might they be mitigated?

A primary risk with Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for actual costs incurred. This can lead to the final contract price exceeding initial estimates if costs are not managed effectively. Another risk is contractor inefficiency, as there may be less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts. For mission systems and sensors support, which often involves cutting-edge technology and complex integration, the scope can be inherently difficult to define precisely, increasing the likelihood of cost growth. Mitigation strategies include strong government oversight, including detailed cost audits and reviews of contractor expenditures. Implementing clear performance metrics and milestones within the contract, and linking them to the fixed fee or future award opportunities, can also incentivize efficiency. Robust Earned Value Management (EVM) systems are crucial for tracking cost and schedule performance. Furthermore, defining the scope of work and deliverables as clearly as possible upfront, even within a CPFF framework, can help manage expectations and control costs.

Given the 'full and open competition' designation, what does the lack of specific bidder numbers imply about the competitive landscape for this contract?

While 'full and open competition' signifies that the solicitation was broadly advertised and all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers, the absence of specific bidder numbers leaves a gap in understanding the true competitive intensity. A high number of bidders typically suggests a robust market with significant interest and capability, which can drive down prices and foster innovation. Conversely, a low number of bidders, even under full and open competition, might indicate a more concentrated market, specialized requirements that limit the pool of qualified contractors, or perhaps a lack of aggressive pursuit by potential competitors. For this contract supporting mission systems and sensors, it's possible that the specialized nature of the work narrowed the field of highly qualified engineering firms. Without knowing the number of proposals received and evaluated, it's difficult to definitively assess whether the competition effectively pressured SAIC on price and technical approach, or if the government secured the best possible value through a less crowded field.

How does the $21.8 million award amount compare to historical spending on similar engineering services for naval mission systems and sensors?

To provide a meaningful comparison, historical spending data on similar engineering services for naval mission systems and sensors would need to be analyzed. This would involve identifying contracts with comparable NAICS codes (e.g., 541330), agencies (Department of the Navy), and service descriptions (mission systems, sensors, engineering support). Factors such as contract duration, contract type (CPFF vs. others), and the specific platforms or systems supported would also be critical for a fair benchmark. Without access to a comprehensive database of historical contract awards and their specific details, it is challenging to definitively state whether $21.8 million represents high, low, or average spending. However, for complex defense systems, multi-year engineering support contracts in the tens of millions of dollars are not uncommon, reflecting the intricate nature and long lifecycle of such technologies. A detailed analysis would require querying contract databases and applying filters to isolate comparable procurements.

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: N0002406R3290

Offers Received: 1

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

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017804D4119

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline