Defense awards Booz Allen Hamilton $91.3M for tuition, registration, and membership fees over 6 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $91,297,503 ($91.3M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-02-01

End Date: 2006-04-30

Contract Duration: 2,280 days

Daily Burn Rate: $40.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200006!1700!00F158!RA13A !FLEET & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER!N0014000CK018 !A!*!* !20000201!20010131!006928857!006928857!006928857!N!17038!BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC !8283 GREENSBORO DR !MC LEAN !VA!22102!12150!037!24!CALIFORNIA !ST. MARY S !MARYLAND !0001!+000003440000!Y!N!000000000000!U005!TUITION, REGISTRATION & MEMBERSHIP FEES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !3299!3!*!*!*!B!N!Z!B !U!U!1!001!N!4A!Z!Y!Z!* !* !N!C!*!A!A!A!A!A!A!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: MCLEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $91.3 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: 200006!1700!00F158!RA13A !FLEET & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER!N0014000CK018 !A!*!* !20000201!20010131!006928857!006928857!006928857!N!17038!BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC !8283 GREENSBORO DR !MC LEAN !VA!22102!12150!037!24!CALIFORNIA !ST.… Key points: 1. The contract value of $91.3M over 6 years suggests a significant but potentially high annual spend. 2. Awarded as 'NOT COMPETED', raising questions about price discovery and potential for better value. 3. The 'COST PLUS FIXED FEE' contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored. 4. This spending falls within the broad 'Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' sector, common for DoD.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $91.3M over 6 years, averaging over $15M annually, appears high for tuition, registration, and membership fees. Benchmarking against similar services for large organizations is difficult without more detail, but the lack of competition suggests potential overpayment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was 'NOT COMPETED', indicating a limited competition approach. This method may lead to higher prices as it bypasses a competitive bidding process, potentially limiting price discovery and the government's ability to secure the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition and a cost-plus contract type may result in taxpayers paying more than necessary for these services.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for educational and membership services due to a lack of competitive bidding. The long contract duration (6 years) locks in this spending without opportunities for re-evaluation. Transparency is limited, making it difficult for the public to assess the necessity and cost-effectiveness of these fees.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Lack of competition
  • Cost-plus contract type
  • High annual spend for fees

Positive Signals

  • Contract awarded to a known entity (Booz Allen Hamilton)
  • Contract duration is defined

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under professional, scientific, and technical services, a broad category. DoD spending in this area is substantial, but the specific nature of 'tuition, registration & membership fees' is unusual for such a large sum, warranting scrutiny.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate any specific allocation or benefit for small businesses in this contract award.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' status suggests potential oversight gaps. A lack of competition requires robust justification and monitoring to ensure fair pricing and prevent potential waste.

Related Government Programs

  • Department of Defense Contracting
  • Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

  • Lack of competition raises concerns about price fairness.
  • Cost-plus contract type can lead to cost escalation.
  • High annual expenditure for 'fees' lacks clear justification.
  • Contract duration is lengthy, reducing flexibility.
  • Limited transparency on specific services rendered.

Tags

department-of-defense, va, definitive-contract, 10m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $91.3 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. 200006!1700!00F158!RA13A !FLEET & INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER!N0014000CK018 !A!*!* !20000201!20010131!006928857!006928857!006928857!N!17038!BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC !8283 GREENSBORO DR !MC LEAN !VA!22102!12150!037!24!CALIFORNIA !ST. MARY S !MARYLAND !0001!+000003440000!Y!N!000000000000!U005!TUITION, REGISTRATION & MEMBERSHIP FEES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !3299!3!*!*!*!B!N!Z!B !U!U!

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 Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $91.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-02-01. End: 2006-04-30.

What specific tuition, registration, and membership programs are covered under this $91.3M contract, and how do they directly benefit fleet and industrial supply center operations?

The contract details are vague, listing 'TUITION, REGISTRATION & MEMBERSHIP FEES' without specifics. It's unclear if these fees are for employee professional development, specialized training, or industry association memberships. Without this clarity, assessing the direct operational benefit and justifying the significant cost is challenging for oversight bodies and the public.

Given the 'NOT COMPETED' status, what was the justification for not seeking competitive bids, and how was the 'cost plus fixed fee' price determined to be fair and reasonable?

The justification for not competing this contract is not provided in the data. Typically, sole-source or limited competition requires specific circumstances like unique capabilities or urgent needs. The 'cost plus fixed fee' structure necessitates rigorous negotiation and auditing to ensure the fixed fee is reasonable and that costs incurred are allowable and allocable, preventing potential overcharging.

What mechanisms are in place to ensure the value received for these tuition, registration, and membership fees aligns with the substantial $91.3M expenditure over six years?

With a cost-plus contract and limited competition, value realization relies heavily on stringent oversight. The contracting officer and relevant program managers must actively track the utilization and effectiveness of the services funded. Performance metrics, regular reviews of fee necessity, and comparison against industry standards for similar services are crucial to ensure the government receives adequate value for taxpayer money.

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

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DR, MC LEAN, VA, 22102

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline

Start Date: 2000-02-01

Current End Date: 2006-04-30

Potential End Date: 2006-04-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2023-06-03

More Contracts from Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

View all Booz Allen Hamilton Inc federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending