Booz Allen Hamilton awarded $95.7M in consulting services, with a significant portion for administrative management

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $95,673,278 ($95.7M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-03-16

End Date: 2022-09-08

Contract Duration: 2,002 days

Daily Burn Rate: $47.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

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

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $95.7 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract value indicates substantial reliance on external expertise for management functions. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a robust market for administrative management consulting services. 3. Performance period spans over five years, implying long-term strategic engagement. 4. The contract's focus on administrative management aligns with broader government efficiency initiatives. 5. Geographic concentration in Maryland may reflect proximity to key decision-making centers. 6. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost containment.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $95.7 million over five years for administrative management consulting services appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale consulting contracts within the Department of Defense suggests that Booz Allen Hamilton's pricing is competitive. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) contract type, while allowing for flexibility, necessitates diligent oversight to ensure that costs remain within acceptable parameters and that the fixed fee adequately compensates for the services rendered without excessive profit margins. The contract's duration suggests a sustained need for these services, which can be more cost-effective than short-term engagements.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation generally suggests a competitive environment. This level of competition is favorable as it typically drives down prices and encourages innovation among contractors vying for the award. It also provides the agency with a wider pool of potential solutions and expertise.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through potentially lower overall costs and access to the best value solutions. This process ensures that the government is not limited to a single provider, fostering a market that rewards efficiency and quality.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from enhanced administrative management and general management consulting services. Services delivered likely include strategic planning, organizational efficiency improvements, and policy development. The primary geographic impact is concentrated in Maryland, where the contractor is based and likely performs significant work. The contract supports a workforce of consultants, contributing to employment in the professional services sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed rigorously, as contractor incentives may lean towards increasing costs to ensure the fixed fee is met.
The long performance period (over five years) increases the risk of scope creep or misalignment with evolving agency needs if not actively managed and reviewed.
Concentration of services in a single large contractor like Booz Allen Hamilton could reduce future competition if smaller firms are consistently outbid on large contracts.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment and access to a broad range of expertise.
Booz Allen Hamilton is a well-established contractor with a proven track record in government consulting, implying a lower risk of performance failure.
The contract's focus on administrative management suggests an effort to improve government operational efficiency, potentially leading to long-term cost savings for taxpayers.
The contract duration allows for in-depth problem-solving and implementation of strategic initiatives, fostering stability and continuity in critical management functions.

Sector Analysis

Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services (NAICS 541611) represent a significant segment of the professional services market supporting government operations. This sector is characterized by a mix of large, established firms and smaller specialized consultancies. Federal spending in this area often supports agency-wide initiatives, strategic planning, and operational improvements. Comparable spending benchmarks vary widely based on the complexity and duration of the services, but contracts in the tens of millions are common for large federal agencies requiring extensive support.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific small business subcontracting requirements in the provided data. The award to a large prime contractor like Booz Allen Hamilton suggests that opportunities for small businesses would primarily be through subcontracting, if mandated or pursued by the prime. Without explicit set-aside provisions or subcontracting plans, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract may be limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting officers and program managers. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure necessitates robust financial oversight to monitor expenditures against the fixed fee and ensure compliance with contract terms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting mechanisms and performance reviews. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Management and Financial Consulting, Acquisition and Commercialization Services
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Defense-wide Consulting Services
Administrative Support Services

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Long performance period increases risk of scope creep if not actively managed.
Potential for limited small business participation if not explicitly included in subcontracting plans.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $95.7 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. IGF::OT::IGF

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 (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $95.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-03-16. End: 2022-09-08.

What is the historical spending trend for administrative management consulting services within the Department of the Navy over the last five fiscal years?

Analyzing the historical spending trends for administrative management consulting services within the Department of the Navy over the last five fiscal years would provide crucial context for the $95.7 million award to Booz Allen Hamilton. While specific figures for this contract are not broken down by year, a broader trend analysis would reveal if this award represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in such services. For instance, if spending has been consistently high, it suggests a sustained reliance on external expertise. Conversely, a sharp increase might indicate a new strategic initiative or a response to identified inefficiencies. Understanding this trend helps assess whether the current award is an anomaly or part of a larger pattern, informing judgments about the necessity and potential value of such expenditures. Without the specific annual spending data, it's difficult to definitively benchmark this contract against past investments or predict future spending patterns in this service category.

How does the 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) structure of this contract compare to other similar administrative management consulting contracts awarded by the DoD?

The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) contract structure, utilized in this $95.7 million award to Booz Allen Hamilton, is common for services where the scope of work may evolve or is difficult to precisely define upfront, such as consulting. In CPFF contracts, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. Comparing this to other similar administrative management consulting contracts within the Department of Defense (DoD) is essential for value assessment. If the DoD frequently uses CPFF for these types of services, it suggests an accepted risk tolerance for potential cost fluctuations in exchange for flexibility. However, if other contracts favor firm-fixed-price (FFP) or cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) structures, it might indicate a stronger emphasis on cost control or performance-based incentives elsewhere. A higher proportion of fixed fees relative to total contract value in comparable contracts could signal better cost predictability. Conversely, if the fixed fee here is unusually high compared to benchmarks, it might warrant closer scrutiny of the contractor's profit margin and the agency's negotiation strategy.

What specific performance metrics or KPIs are associated with this contract to measure Booz Allen Hamilton's effectiveness?

The effectiveness of Booz Allen Hamilton's services under this $95.7 million contract is contingent upon clearly defined performance metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). While the provided data does not detail these specific metrics, typical KPIs for administrative management consulting could include improvements in process efficiency (e.g., reduction in cycle times for specific administrative tasks), cost savings achieved through implemented recommendations, successful deployment of new management systems, enhanced organizational structure effectiveness, or improved employee satisfaction scores related to management practices. The contract's 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' nature implies that performance is likely monitored through regular progress reports, milestone achievements, and potentially client satisfaction surveys. The agency's ability to track and measure the impact of the consulting services against predefined goals is critical for ensuring value for money and justifying the expenditure. Without access to these specific KPIs and performance data, a thorough assessment of the contractor's effectiveness and the overall success of the contract remains incomplete.

What is the track record of Booz Allen Hamilton with the Department of the Navy, specifically regarding administrative management consulting contracts?

Booz Allen Hamilton has a long-standing and extensive track record with the Department of the Navy (DoN), encompassing a wide array of services, including administrative management and general management consulting. As a major federal contractor, their history with the DoN is characterized by numerous awards across various domains. For administrative management consulting specifically, their performance has generally been viewed as strong, leveraging their deep expertise in organizational strategy, process improvement, and technology integration. However, like any large contractor, there may have been instances of performance challenges or contract disputes on specific projects. A comprehensive review would involve examining past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), any significant contract modifications, and the overall history of successful task order completions. Their consistent ability to win large, competitive contracts like this $95.7 million award suggests a generally positive and reliable performance history with the DoN, indicating they are a trusted partner for complex management challenges.

How does the $95.7 million total contract value compare to the average annual spending on administrative management consulting by the Department of the Navy?

The $95.7 million total contract value awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton represents a significant investment in administrative management and general management consulting services by the Department of the Navy (DoN). To contextualize this amount, it's essential to compare it against the DoN's average annual spending in this specific service category (NAICS 541611). If the DoN typically spends hundreds of millions annually on such services, then $95.7 million over five years might represent a moderate portion of their budget for this area. Conversely, if annual spending is typically in the tens of millions, this single contract could represent a substantial portion, or even exceed, the average annual outlay. Without access to the DoN's historical procurement data for this NAICS code, it's challenging to definitively state whether this contract is large or small relative to overall spending. However, given the duration and the nature of the services, it is likely a substantial contract, possibly encompassing major strategic initiatives or agency-wide support.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'Delivery Order' (AW) type for this contract, and how are they mitigated?

The 'Delivery Order' (AW) designation, in conjunction with the contract type (likely a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity - IDIQ, though not explicitly stated), implies that this $95.7 million represents the total ceiling value, and specific work will be ordered through individual delivery orders. The primary risk associated with this structure is potential 'scope creep' or uncontrolled spending if individual delivery orders are not carefully managed and aligned with the original contract's intent. Another risk is ensuring fair distribution and competition among potential awardees if this is part of a larger IDIQ vehicle. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust oversight by the contracting officer and program managers, clear definition of tasks and objectives within each delivery order, adherence to the contract's ceiling value, and potentially competitive bidding for larger delivery orders if the contract vehicle allows. Regular reviews of task order performance and alignment with strategic goals are crucial to manage these risks effectively and ensure the overall contract delivers intended value.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N0042116R0065

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DR, MCLEAN, VA, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $96,889,966

Exercised Options: $96,889,966

Current Obligation: $95,673,278

Actual Outlays: $23,162,097

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 52

Total Subaward Amount: $18,355,463

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0042117D0021

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline