DoD's $11.3M Engineering Services Contract with DDL Omni Engineering LLC: A Deep Dive into Value and Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,283,822 ($11.3M)

Contractor: DDL Omni Engineering LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-06-29

End Date: 2013-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,193 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: N00178-04-D-4032-N401 TAS::97 0100::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: MCLEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.3 million to DDL OMNI ENGINEERING LLC for work described as: N00178-04-D-4032-N401 TAS::97 0100::TAS Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus award fee structure allows for performance-based incentives, potentially driving efficiency. 2. Analysis of pricing against comparable engineering services contracts is crucial for assessing value for money. 3. The 'full and open competition' designation suggests a robust bidding process, likely leading to competitive pricing. 4. Performance context is key; understanding the specific engineering services delivered will illuminate the contract's effectiveness. 5. This contract falls within the broader 'Engineering Services' sector, a critical component of defense and infrastructure projects. 6. The duration of the contract (over 6 years) indicates a significant, long-term need for these services. 7. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary awardee is not a small business, with potential subcontracting implications.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $11.3 million over approximately six years averages to about $1.88 million annually. Without specific details on the scope of engineering services provided, a direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. However, the cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure implies that the final cost could vary based on performance. Benchmarking the per-unit cost of specific engineering tasks against industry standards or other government contracts would be necessary to definitively assess value for money. The initial award amount provides a baseline, but the final expenditure will depend on performance metrics and fee adjustments.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This typically involves a formal solicitation process, evaluation of proposals, and selection of the best value offer. The number of bidders is not specified, but the designation suggests a competitive environment that should theoretically drive down costs and improve service quality. The agency's commitment to open competition is a positive signal for price discovery and efficient resource allocation.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through potentially lower prices due to market forces. It also ensures that the government explores a wider range of solutions and contractors, increasing the likelihood of obtaining the best possible service for the investment.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential engineering services to support its operations and projects. Services delivered likely include design, analysis, testing, and technical support for various defense systems or infrastructure. The geographic impact is primarily within Virginia, where the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is located, but the services could support projects nationwide or globally. The contract supports a workforce of engineers and technical specialists, contributing to employment in the engineering sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee contracts if performance incentives are not tightly managed.
Lack of specific details on the engineering services rendered makes it difficult to assess the true value and impact.
The contract's long duration could lead to vendor lock-in if not managed with regular performance reviews and market checks.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process that should yield fair pricing.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes contractor performance, potentially leading to higher quality services.
The contract supports critical engineering services for the Department of Defense, indicating a vital need.

Sector Analysis

The engineering services sector is a vital component of the U.S. economy, supporting a wide range of industries including defense, infrastructure, and technology. Government contracts for engineering services are substantial, with the federal government being a major client. This contract, valued at $11.3 million over its life, represents a moderate-sized engagement within the broader federal spending on engineering and technical support. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other DoD contracts for similar engineering disciplines and durations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary awardee, DDL Omni Engineering LLC, is likely a larger entity, or that the scope of work was not tailored for small business participation. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless DDL Omni Engineering LLC engages in significant subcontracting with small businesses. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to assess the broader impact on small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The 'Cost Plus Award Fee' structure necessitates rigorous performance monitoring to ensure that award fees are justified. Transparency is facilitated by the contract's public award data, but detailed performance reports and audits would provide deeper insights into accountability. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Engineering Services Contracts
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Support Services
Cost-Plus Award Fee Contracts
Federal Engineering Services Procurement

Risk Flags

Potential for cost creep in CPAF contracts.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in public data.
Long contract duration requires ongoing oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.3 million to DDL OMNI ENGINEERING LLC. N00178-04-D-4032-N401 TAS::97 0100::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DDL OMNI ENGINEERING LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-06-29. End: 2013-06-30.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract, and how did they align with DoD's mission requirements?

The provided data identifies the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code as 541330, which corresponds to 'Engineering Services.' This broad category can encompass a wide array of activities, including but not limited to, design, development, testing, analysis, and consulting for various systems and infrastructure. For this specific contract with DDL Omni Engineering LLC, the exact nature of the engineering services would require access to the contract's statement of work (SOW). These services likely supported specific defense programs, research and development initiatives, or operational readiness requirements of the Department of Defense. Without the SOW, it's impossible to detail the precise alignment with mission requirements, but the contract's existence implies a critical need for specialized engineering expertise within the DoD.

How does the $11.3 million total contract value compare to other engineering services contracts awarded by the DoD of similar duration?

The total contract value of $11.3 million over approximately six years (2193 days) equates to an average annual expenditure of roughly $1.88 million. To benchmark this effectively, one would need to compare it against other DoD contracts for engineering services awarded within a similar timeframe and with comparable scope. For instance, if other contracts for similar complexity and duration ranged from $1 million to $5 million annually, this contract would fall within a moderate spending bracket. Conversely, if similar services were consistently procured for less than $1 million annually, it might suggest a higher-than-average cost. Access to a broader database of federal contract awards, filtered by agency, service type, and duration, is necessary for a robust comparative analysis.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the 'award fee' in this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract?

In a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, the 'award fee' is determined based on the contractor's performance against pre-defined criteria and metrics outlined in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Work (SOW). While the specific KPIs for this DDL Omni Engineering LLC contract are not detailed in the provided data, typical KPIs for engineering services can include factors such as technical performance (e.g., meeting design specifications, accuracy of analysis), schedule adherence (e.g., timely delivery of reports, completion of milestones), cost control (though less emphasized in CPAF than in fixed-price contracts), customer satisfaction, and innovation. The government typically establishes a fee structure where the contractor can earn a certain percentage of the base cost, with the actual award fee determined by a subjective evaluation of their performance against these KPIs by a designated government official.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services by the Department of Defense, and does this contract represent a significant deviation?

The Department of Defense is consistently one of the largest federal agencies by contract spending, and engineering services represent a significant portion of that expenditure due to the complexity of military systems and infrastructure. Historical data would show billions of dollars spent annually on various engineering disciplines, from aerospace and naval architecture to civil and electrical engineering. This specific $11.3 million contract, spread over six years, is a relatively modest component within the DoD's overall engineering services budget. It does not represent a significant deviation in terms of scale or type of service, but rather a typical procurement to fulfill specific, ongoing needs for specialized technical expertise. Analyzing trends in contract types (e.g., CPAF vs. fixed-price) and competition levels over time would provide further context.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure for engineering services?

The primary risk associated with CPAF contracts, including this one for engineering services, is the potential for cost growth if the award fee criteria are not sufficiently stringent or if the government's evaluation process is subjective or inconsistent. While CPAF aims to incentivize performance, there's a risk that contractors may focus on achieving the award fee rather than optimizing overall cost-efficiency. Another risk is the administrative burden on the government to establish clear, measurable performance metrics and to conduct fair and objective evaluations. If the government's oversight is weak, contractors might receive higher fees than warranted, leading to reduced value for taxpayers. Conversely, overly aggressive fee withholding can demotivate contractors and impact performance.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N0002407R3146

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: DDL Omni Engineering Corp (UEI: 627002504)

Address: 8260 GREENSBORO DR STE 600, MC LEAN, VA, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,377,969

Exercised Options: $11,377,969

Current Obligation: $11,283,822

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017804D4032

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline