Dod's $26.7M Inwss and Surety Support Task Contract Awarded to Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc. for Engineering Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,729,909 ($26.7M)

Contractor: Systems Planning and Analysis, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-01-14

End Date: 2012-02-29

Contract Duration: 776 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: INWSS AND SURETY SUPPORT TASK (CPFF-LOE)

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA (CITY) County, VIRGINIA, 22311

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.7 million to SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, INC. for work described as: INWSS AND SURETY SUPPORT TASK (CPFF-LOE) Key points: 1. The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about potential price overruns and lack of competitive pressure. 2. The duration of the contract (776 days) suggests a significant scope of work, requiring careful monitoring of performance and cost. 3. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize contractors to increase costs, necessitating robust oversight. 4. The absence of small business set-aside indicates limited opportunities for smaller firms in this specific procurement. 5. Engineering services are critical for defense operations, but the lack of competition here warrants scrutiny of value for money.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value for money on this sole-source contract is challenging without comparable bids. The CPFF structure, while common for R&D or uncertain scope, can lead to higher costs if not tightly managed. The total award amount of $26.7 million over approximately two years suggests a substantial investment. Without competitive data, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is fair or if taxpayers received optimal value. Further analysis would require access to the contractor's cost breakdown and profit margins.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This typically occurs when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or proprietary knowledge required for the service. While sometimes justified, sole-source awards limit price discovery and can reduce competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher costs for the government. The lack of competition means the government did not benefit from a bidding process that could have driven down prices.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not be getting the best possible price, as there was no competition to drive down costs. This can result in a less efficient use of public funds compared to competitively awarded contracts.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from specialized engineering services to support its INWSS and surety functions. This contract likely supports critical infrastructure or systems requiring specialized engineering expertise. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense's operational areas, potentially worldwide. The contract supports a specialized workforce of engineers and technical experts within SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, INC.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not rigorously managed.
Lack of transparency in sole-source justifications can obscure true necessity and value.
Limited data available on performance metrics and specific deliverables for this contract.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a company with presumed expertise in specialized engineering services.
The contract addresses a specific need within the Department of the Navy's operations.
Fixed fee component provides some cost predictability compared to pure cost-plus contracts.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS code 541330), a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. The federal government is a significant consumer of engineering services, particularly the Department of Defense, for design, analysis, and technical support across various platforms and infrastructure projects. Market size for federal engineering services is substantial, with spending often driven by national security requirements and infrastructure upgrades. This contract appears to be a specific, specialized requirement within the Navy's operational support.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate no small business set-aside (ss=false, sb=false). This suggests that the procurement was not specifically targeted to encourage participation by small businesses. Consequently, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by this specific award. The absence of a set-aside means larger, established firms were likely the primary focus or sole provider for this requirement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. As a sole-source award, scrutiny would be particularly important to ensure fair pricing and necessity. The CPFF structure necessitates close monitoring of costs and performance to prevent overruns. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature, making public oversight more challenging.

Related Government Programs

Department of the Navy Engineering Support Contracts
Defense-wide Engineering and Technical Services
Systems Engineering and Analysis Contracts
Naval Systems Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about fair pricing and competition.
CPFF contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Lack of small business participation noted.
Limited public information on specific deliverables and performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.7 million to SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, INC.. INWSS AND SURETY SUPPORT TASK (CPFF-LOE)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, 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 $26.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-01-14. End: 2012-02-29.

What specific "INWSS AND SURETY SUPPORT" functions does this contract entail, and why were they deemed to require a sole-source award?

The specific functions of the "INWSS AND SURETY SUPPORT TASK" are not detailed in the provided data. However, "INWSS" could potentially refer to "Integrated Network Warfare Support Systems" or a similar naval systems designation, while "Surety Support" might relate to ensuring the reliability, security, or operational readiness of critical systems. Sole-source awards are typically justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as the existence of only one responsible source, urgent and compelling needs, or specific national security requirements that preclude competition. Without further documentation, the precise justification for this sole-source award remains unclear, but it implies a unique capability or requirement held by SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, INC. that could not be met by other vendors.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type typically influence contractor behavior and cost control in a sole-source environment?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type reimburses the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. In a sole-source environment, this structure can present a risk of cost escalation. Since the contractor is guaranteed to cover all costs and receive a fixed profit regardless of the final cost, there is less inherent incentive to aggressively control expenses compared to fixed-price contracts. The government bears the financial risk of cost overruns. Effective oversight, detailed cost tracking, and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate this risk and ensure the government receives good value. The fixed fee, however, does provide some predictability regarding the contractor's profit margin.

What is the typical performance period and value range for similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy?

The provided data indicates a contract duration of 776 days (approximately 2.1 years) and a total award value of $26.7 million. Similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy can vary significantly in duration and value depending on the complexity and scope of the requirement. Contracts for specialized technical support, system design, or program management can range from a few million dollars for shorter-term, focused tasks to hundreds of millions or even billions for large-scale, multi-year programs. The value of $26.7 million for over two years suggests a moderately sized, specialized support contract within the Navy's engineering domain. Benchmarking requires comparing contracts with similar NAICS codes (541330) and service descriptions.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a significant contract like this without competition, particularly regarding innovation and long-term cost-effectiveness?

Awarding a significant contract without competition, as in this sole-source case, carries several risks. Firstly, the lack of competitive pressure can lead to suboptimal pricing, meaning the government may pay more than necessary. Secondly, it can stifle innovation, as the incumbent contractor may have less incentive to develop novel or more cost-effective solutions if their current approach guarantees payment. Long-term cost-effectiveness can be compromised if the contractor does not actively seek efficiencies. Furthermore, it can create a dependency on a single provider, making future procurements potentially more difficult and expensive if the incumbent's pricing escalates over time. Robust performance management and periodic re-evaluation of the need for competition are essential mitigation strategies.

Can SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, INC.'s past performance on similar government contracts be assessed to gauge their reliability and effectiveness for this task?

Assessing SYSTEMS PLANNING AND ANALYSIS, INC.'s past performance is crucial for understanding their reliability and effectiveness, especially given this sole-source award. While the provided data does not include specific past performance details, government contracting databases (like the Federal Procurement Data System - FPDS) often contain information on contract awards, performance ratings, and any disputes or terminations. A thorough review would involve examining their track record with the Department of Defense and other agencies, looking for successful completion of similar engineering services contracts, adherence to schedules and budgets, and any negative performance indicators. Positive past performance can provide some assurance, but it does not fully substitute for the benefits of a competitive bidding process.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2001 N BEAUREGARD ST., SUITE 100, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Federally Funded Research and Development Corp, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $38,623,230

Exercised Options: $27,378,884

Current Obligation: $26,729,909

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline