DoD's $26.4M engineering services contract with Purvis Systems Inc. awarded in 2010 shows long-term engagement

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,405,005 ($26.4M)

Contractor: Purvis Systems Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-09-24

End Date: 2018-12-31

Contract Duration: 3,020 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: SD N00024-10-R-3208

Place of Performance

Location: QUEENS VILLAGE, QUEENS County, NEW YORK, 11429

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.4 million to PURVIS SYSTEMS INC for work described as: SD N00024-10-R-3208 Key points: 1. Contract value of $26.4 million over its period of performance suggests a significant engagement. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified bidders. 3. The duration of the contract (over 8 years) may point to sustained need and successful performance. 4. Engineering services are critical for defense operations, supporting complex technological requirements. 5. The contract's primary location in New York could have local economic implications. 6. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure requires careful monitoring of costs to ensure value.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $26.4 million over an 8-year period averages approximately $3.3 million per year. Without specific benchmarks for similar engineering services contracts within the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the duration suggests a consistent need and potentially stable pricing over time. The CPFF structure necessitates diligent oversight to prevent cost overruns and ensure the fixed fee remains reasonable for the services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, encouraging multiple bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions. The number of bidders is not specified, but the method itself suggests an effort to achieve competitive pricing and identify the most capable contractor.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by promoting a wider range of offers, which can lead to more cost-effective solutions and prevent price inflation that might occur with less competitive award methods.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from specialized engineering expertise to support its operations and technological development. Services delivered likely include design, analysis, and technical support for naval systems and infrastructure. The primary geographic impact is in New York, where the contractor is located, potentially supporting local jobs and the regional economy. The contract supports a workforce of engineers and technical specialists, contributing to the skilled labor pool in the engineering sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts can lead to higher costs if not managed rigorously, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee.
The extended duration of the contract (over 8 years) might indicate a lack of flexibility or potential for vendor lock-in if not periodically re-competed.
Lack of specific performance metrics or outcome data makes it difficult to fully assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the services provided.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust process to select the best value.
The long performance period implies a sustained need and potentially a track record of satisfactory performance by the contractor.
Engineering services are crucial for maintaining and advancing defense capabilities, indicating a strategic investment.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a significant market supporting government and private industry with specialized technical expertise. The federal government is a major consumer of engineering services, particularly within defense, for areas such as system design, research, development, and maintenance. The total federal spending on engineering services is substantial, with defense agencies being primary clients. This contract represents a portion of that broader spending, focused on supporting naval engineering requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits to the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The primary contractor, Purvis Systems Inc., is likely a medium to large-sized business given the contract value and duration.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the administrative contracting officer (ACO) within the Department of the Navy. Performance monitoring, cost reviews, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Contracts
Department of Defense Engineering Support Services
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Oversight
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Compliance

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing requires diligent oversight to manage potential cost escalations.
Extended contract duration may warrant review for opportunities to re-compete or ensure continued best value.
Lack of specific performance outcome data limits a comprehensive assessment of service effectiveness.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.4 million to PURVIS SYSTEMS INC. SD N00024-10-R-3208

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PURVIS SYSTEMS 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 $26.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-09-24. End: 2018-12-31.

What was the specific nature of the engineering services provided under this contract?

While the contract falls under the broad category of Engineering Services (NAICS 541330), the specific nature of the services provided by Purvis Systems Inc. for the Department of the Navy is not detailed in the provided data. Typically, engineering services for defense contracts can encompass a wide range of activities, including but not limited to, systems engineering, design and development, technical analysis, testing and evaluation, logistics support, and program management. Given the long duration and significant value, it likely involved complex and ongoing support for naval systems, platforms, or infrastructure, requiring specialized technical expertise.

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

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or involves a high degree of uncertainty, such as in research and development or complex engineering projects. In this structure, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers more flexibility for the government if requirements change but carries a higher risk of cost growth if not managed diligently. Compared to Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts, the fee is fixed regardless of performance, potentially offering less incentive for cost control than CPIF, which adjusts the fee based on performance against targets.

What is the typical duration for engineering services contracts of this magnitude within the Department of Defense?

The typical duration for engineering services contracts within the Department of Defense can vary significantly based on the nature of the requirement, technological complexity, and program lifecycle. Contracts valued in the tens of millions of dollars, like this $26.4 million award, often span several years to accommodate the development, implementation, or sustainment phases of defense systems. An 8-year period (from 2010 to 2018) is on the longer side but not uncommon for critical, long-term support services, especially if the contract involved multiple delivery orders or options that extended its performance period. Shorter durations are more common for specific, well-defined tasks.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract awarded through full and open competition?

While full and open competition aims to secure the best value, a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure introduces specific risks. The primary risk is cost overrun, as the contractor is reimbursed for actual costs. Without robust oversight and clear performance metrics, costs can escalate beyond initial expectations, even though the fee is fixed. Another risk is scope creep, where the project's scope expands without adequate adjustments to the fee or schedule, potentially leading to inefficiencies. Contractor performance can also be a risk if the fixed fee does not adequately incentivize exceptional effort or if the contractor lacks the necessary expertise, despite winning the competitive bid.

How does the geographic location of the contractor (New York) impact the contract's execution and oversight?

The geographic location of the contractor in New York (NY) primarily impacts the logistics of contract oversight and potential for site visits by government personnel. The Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or their representatives may be located closer to the contractor's facilities, facilitating more direct communication and on-site inspections. For the contractor, being based in New York might offer access to a skilled engineering workforce and proximity to related industries or government facilities in the region. However, for a contract primarily involving engineering services, the physical location is often less critical than the contractor's ability to deliver services remotely or through established communication channels, unless the work requires on-site presence at naval facilities.

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: N0002410R3208

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5225 RT 347 STE11, PORT JEFFERSON STATION, NY, 11776

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $39,311,447

Exercised Options: $39,311,447

Current Obligation: $26,405,005

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 4

Total Subaward Amount: $15,239,924

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017804D4109

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline