Department of Defense awarded $214.7M contract for services, with 6,171 days duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $214,762,121 ($214.8M)

Contractor: Energy, Department of

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1999-11-08

End Date: 2016-09-30

Contract Duration: 6,171 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: Defense

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20585

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $214.8 million to ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $214.7M over 17 years suggests significant long-term service provision. 2. The 'NOT COMPETED' status raises questions about potential cost efficiencies and market engagement. 3. A long contract duration of over 17 years may indicate a need for sustained support or potential for cost overruns if not managed effectively. 4. The 'COST NO FEE' contract type implies that the government reimburses the contractor for allowable costs, with no fee or profit. 5. The absence of a Price Sector Code (PSC) might indicate a specialized service not easily categorized or a data entry oversight. 6. The contract was awarded to a single entity, potentially limiting broader economic participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $214.7 million over 17 years is substantial. Without comparable contracts or detailed cost breakdowns, assessing value for money is difficult. The 'COST NO FEE' structure means the government bears the cost risk, and the absence of a fee could indicate a non-profit entity or a specific government-internal service arrangement. Benchmarking is challenging due to the lack of specific service details and the long duration.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification ('NOT COMPETED'). This means that the Department of the Navy did not conduct a competitive bidding process. Reasons for sole-sourcing can include unique capabilities, urgent needs, or lack of available alternatives. The absence of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the best possible price and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. It also limits opportunities for other businesses to secure government contracts.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the specific entities or programs within the Department of the Navy that require the services provided under this contract. The services delivered are not specified due to the lack of a Price Sector Code (PSC). The geographic impact is centered around the District of Columbia, as indicated by the 'ST' and 'SN' fields. Workforce implications are unknown without details on the nature of the services, but a contract of this magnitude could support a significant number of jobs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to suboptimal pricing for taxpayers.
Extended contract duration increases the risk of scope creep or changing requirements not being adequately addressed.
The 'COST NO FEE' structure shifts cost risk entirely to the government.
Absence of specific service details (PSC) hinders performance monitoring and evaluation.

Positive Signals

The long duration suggests a stable, ongoing requirement that the contractor has likely met satisfactorily over time.
Awarding to a single entity might indicate a highly specialized or critical service where only one provider meets the stringent requirements.
The contract's existence demonstrates the government's commitment to fulfilling a specific need.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector is characterized by complex, long-term contracts for a wide range of goods and services, from R&D to maintenance and operations. Spending in this sector is substantial, often involving specialized technologies and security requirements. This contract, valued at over $200 million and spanning more than 17 years, fits within the typical profile of significant defense procurements, though the lack of specific service details makes precise sector positioning difficult. Comparable spending benchmarks are hard to establish without knowing the service category.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a specific set-aside consideration ('ss': false, 'sb': false). As a sole-source award, there were likely no subcontracting opportunities mandated for small businesses. This contract does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem through set-asides or explicit subcontracting goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, as a large, long-term Department of Defense contract, it would typically be subject to internal agency oversight, potentially including program management reviews, financial audits, and contract performance monitoring. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Defense would likely have jurisdiction for investigations into fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and lack of public detail on services.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Services Contracts
Long-Term Government Service Agreements
Sole-Source Defense Procurements
Cost-Reimbursement Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competition.
Extended contract duration increases risk.
Cost-reimbursement type shifts risk to government.
Lack of specific service details hinders analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $214.8 million to ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENERGY, DEPARTMENT OF.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $214.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-11-08. End: 2016-09-30.

What specific services were provided under this $214.7 million contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact services rendered under this contract, as indicated by the absence of a Price Sector Code (PSC) and other descriptive fields. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, suggesting the services were likely related to naval operations, support, or infrastructure. Given the 'COST NO FEE' award type and the extensive duration (over 17 years), the services could range from long-term maintenance and sustainment to specialized technical support, program management, or operational services critical to the Navy's mission. Without further details, pinpointing the exact nature of the services remains speculative.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' signifying a sole-source award. The specific justification for this decision is not provided. Common reasons for sole-sourcing include situations where only one responsible source can provide the required supply or service, urgent and compelling needs that preclude competition, or when the contract is a follow-on to a previously competed contract where only the original contractor can provide the necessary services due to proprietary data, specialized knowledge, or unique equipment. For this Department of the Navy contract, the rationale would need to be documented and approved by the contracting authority.

How does the 'COST NO FEE' contract type impact the government and the contractor?

A 'COST NO FEE' (CNF) contract type means the government agrees to pay the contractor for all allowable costs incurred in performing the contract, but the contractor receives no additional payment for profit or fee. This structure is typically used when the contractor is a non-profit organization, a government-owned entity, or when the primary objective is to ensure the availability of a service rather than to generate profit for the contractor. For the government, it means the total cost is limited to the incurred costs, but there is no incentive for the contractor to control costs beyond what is necessary to fulfill the contract terms, as their profit is not tied to efficiency. The contractor is essentially reimbursed for expenses without a profit margin.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract lasting over 17 years?

A contract duration of 6,171 days (over 17 years) presents several risks. Firstly, the likelihood of scope creep or requirement changes over such a long period is high; the initial statement of work may become outdated, leading to potential disputes or costly modifications. Secondly, market conditions, technology, and pricing structures can evolve significantly, potentially making the original pricing uncompetitive or inefficient over time. Thirdly, maintaining consistent performance oversight and accountability across such an extended period can be challenging for the contracting agency. Finally, there's a risk of contractor complacency or a decline in service quality if performance incentives are weak or oversight is lax.

What is the historical spending pattern for this type of service within the Department of the Navy?

The provided data offers a single data point for this specific contract and does not include historical spending patterns for similar services within the Department of the Navy. To analyze historical spending, one would need access to a broader dataset encompassing multiple contracts, their values, durations, and service types over several fiscal years. This would allow for trend analysis, identification of major spending categories, and comparison of current spending against past investments. Without such data, it's impossible to contextualize this $214.7 million award within the Navy's broader budgetary or procurement history for comparable services.

Does the 'DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA' location indicate the primary place of performance or the contractor's address?

The fields 'ST' (State) and 'SN' (State Name) are listed as 'DC' and 'DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA', respectively. In federal contract data, these fields typically denote the location of the contractor's business or the primary place of performance. Given the context of a large service contract, it is plausible that the District of Columbia is either the contractor's headquarters or the primary operational hub for fulfilling the contract's requirements for the Department of the Navy. However, without explicit clarification in the data schema, it could also represent the administrative location for contract management or a significant portion of the work being performed there.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Government of the United States (UEI: 161906193)

Address: 1000 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20585

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

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline