Booz Allen Hamilton awarded $34.7M for engineering and technical services to Naval Air Warfare Center

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,708,249 ($34.7M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1998-10-29

End Date: 2011-09-07

Contract Duration: 4,696 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 199901!1700!0463!A8107!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER, AIRCRA!N0042199C1011 !A!*!P00002 !19981029!19990731!006928857!006928857!006928857!N!17038!BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC !8283 GREENSBORO DR !MC LEAN !VA!22102!48376!059!51!MCLEAN !FAIRFAX !VIRGINIA !0001!+000000100000!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8711!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!A !N!U!2!003!B!* !C!N!Z!* !* !N!C!*!Z!Z!A!A!A!*!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: MC LEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.7 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: 199901!1700!0463!A8107!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER, AIRCRA!N0042199C1011 !A!*!P00002 !19981029!19990731!006928857!006928857!006928857!N!17038!BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC !8283 GREENSBORO DR !MC LEAN !VA!22102!48376!059!51!MCLEAN !FAIRFA… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for engineering and technical services, indicating a need for specialized expertise. 2. The contract duration of over 12 years suggests a long-term requirement for these services. 3. Awarded as a definitive contract, implying a stable and ongoing relationship. 4. The cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing structure allows for flexibility while managing contractor profit. 5. The significant duration and value point to a substantial role for the contractor in supporting naval aviation. 6. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $34.7 million over approximately 13 years averages to about $2.67 million per year. This appears reasonable for specialized engineering and technical services provided to a major defense entity like the Naval Air Warfare Center. Benchmarking against similar long-term, complex service contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment, but the annual spend is not excessively high given the scope and duration.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. While the exact number of bidders is not specified, this competitive approach generally leads to better price discovery and ensures that the government selects the most advantageous offer. The fact that it was competed suggests a healthy market for these types of services.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the best value for their investment, preventing inflated prices that might arise from a less competitive environment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Naval Air Warfare Center and its mission to support naval aviation. Services delivered include engineering and technical support, crucial for the development, maintenance, and modernization of naval air systems. The geographic impact is centered around naval aviation facilities, likely supporting operations and research nationwide. Workforce implications include the employment of skilled engineers, technicians, and support staff by Booz Allen Hamilton.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to complacency or reduced agility if not actively managed.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored for scope creep.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical services over an extended period poses a risk.

Positive Signals

Award under full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
The contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, is a well-established firm with extensive experience in government contracting.
The long duration indicates a sustained need and likely successful performance history.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically supporting defense-related engineering and technical functions. The market for such services is large and competitive, with numerous firms capable of providing specialized expertise to government agencies. Spending in this category is substantial across the federal government, reflecting the ongoing need for advanced technical support in areas like defense, aerospace, and technology.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. As a large definitive contract awarded to a major contractor, the primary focus is likely on prime performance. However, large prime contractors often engage small businesses for specialized support, so there may be indirect subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), responsible for ensuring contract terms are met. Performance reviews, financial audits, and regular reporting are standard accountability measures. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases, though specific performance details may be sensitive.

Related Government Programs

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Contracts
Defense Engineering Services Contracts
Aerospace Technical Support
Federal IT and Engineering Services
Department of Defense Professional Services

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may require active management to prevent complacency.
Cost-plus contracts necessitate vigilant oversight to control costs.
Potential for scope creep in engineering and technical services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.7 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. 199901!1700!0463!A8107!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER, AIRCRA!N0042199C1011 !A!*!P00002 !19981029!19990731!006928857!006928857!006928857!N!17038!BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC !8283 GREENSBORO DR !MC LEAN !VA!22102!48376!059!51!MCLEAN !FAIRFAX !VIRGINIA !0001!+000000100000!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8711!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!A !N!U!2!0

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 $34.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1998-10-29. End: 2011-09-07.

What is the historical spending trend for engineering and technical services by the Naval Air Warfare Center?

Analyzing historical spending for engineering and technical services by the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) requires examining contract awards over multiple fiscal years. While this specific contract represents a significant award, understanding the broader trend involves looking at the total obligated amounts for similar service codes (e.g., R425) and contract types awarded by NAWC. Generally, defense agencies like NAWC maintain consistent or increasing spending on engineering and technical services due to the continuous need for research, development, modernization, and sustainment of complex weapon systems. Factors such as budget allocations, strategic priorities, and the lifecycle of naval aviation platforms influence these spending patterns. A detailed analysis would involve aggregating data from various contracts to identify peaks, troughs, and overall growth or decline in investment in these critical support functions.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) compare to other contract types for similar services?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, used here, is common for research and development or complex services where the final costs are difficult to estimate precisely at the outset. It reimburses the contractor for allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers more flexibility for the government if the scope evolves but can potentially lead to higher costs if not managed tightly, as the contractor is incentivized to cover costs. Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) contracts, another alternative, add incentives for cost savings or performance targets, potentially yielding better value than CPFF. However, for services requiring significant upfront investment and evolving requirements, CPFF can be an appropriate choice when risks are shared between the government and the contractor.

What is Booz Allen Hamilton's track record with the Department of Defense for similar engineering services?

Booz Allen Hamilton has an extensive and long-standing track record of providing a wide array of services, including engineering and technical support, to the Department of Defense (DoD). They are a major contractor across various military branches and agencies, consistently winning significant contracts for complex projects. Their history with the DoD includes work on systems engineering, cybersecurity, intelligence analysis, and program management. While specific performance metrics for individual contracts are often not publicly detailed, their continued success in securing large DoD contracts suggests a generally positive performance history and a strong understanding of military requirements. However, like any large contractor, they may have faced scrutiny or challenges on specific projects over their extensive history.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) typically used to evaluate engineering and technical service contracts of this nature?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for engineering and technical service contracts like this one often focus on technical performance, schedule adherence, cost control, and customer satisfaction. For technical performance, KPIs might include the accuracy and completeness of engineering designs, the successful integration of systems, the effectiveness of technical solutions, and compliance with technical specifications. Schedule adherence would be measured by the timely completion of milestones and deliverables. Cost control KPIs would monitor actual costs against the estimated budget and the fixed fee, ensuring the project stays within financial parameters. Customer satisfaction is often gauged through formal reviews, feedback from government points of contact, and the overall impact of the services on the end-user's mission success. Effective oversight ensures these KPIs are tracked and reported regularly.

What is the potential impact of contract modifications on the total value and duration?

Contract modifications can significantly impact the total value and duration of a contract. For a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract like this one, modifications often arise due to changes in scope, unforeseen technical challenges, or evolving requirements. If the scope of work expands, modifications may increase the estimated cost ceiling and potentially the fixed fee, thereby raising the total contract value. Similarly, if new tasks or phases are added, the contract's period of performance (duration) can be extended. While modifications are a normal part of long-term, complex contracts, frequent or substantial changes can indicate poor initial planning, scope creep, or a lack of clear requirements, potentially leading to cost overruns and delays. Effective contract management involves scrutinizing modifications to ensure they are justified, adequately priced, and aligned with the overall program objectives.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

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: NO

Timeline