DoD's $34M Engineering Services Contract for Naval Facilities Awarded to Jacobs/HDR Joint Venture

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,017,960 ($34.0M)

Contractor: Jacobs/Hdr, a Joint Venture (navfac Atlantic SRM)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2021-09-08

End Date: 2023-01-31

Contract Duration: 510 days

Daily Burn Rate: $66.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CNIC 3051B THIRD PARTY PPV INSPECTIONS

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22201

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $34.0 million to JACOBS/HDR, A JOINT VENTURE (NAVFAC ATLANTIC SRM) for work described as: CNIC 3051B THIRD PARTY PPV INSPECTIONS Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract is for engineering services, a critical component of naval facility maintenance and upgrades. 3. The duration of the contract is 510 days, indicating a medium-term project. 4. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 5. The award was made by the Department of the Navy, a major component of the DoD. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to engineering services. 7. The contract value of approximately $34 million is significant for this type of service. 8. The contract was awarded as a Delivery Order, suggesting it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $34 million for engineering services over approximately 17 months appears reasonable given the scope of supporting naval facilities. Without specific deliverables or comparable project data, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure incentivizes the contractor to manage costs effectively. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering support contracts for military installations would provide further insight into its competitiveness.

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 bids. This method generally fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and service quality. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition suggests a robust process was intended. The level of competition directly influences price discovery and the government's ability to secure favorable terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through the potential for lower prices and higher quality services due to a wider pool of bidders vying for the contract. This process aims to ensure that public funds are used efficiently by selecting the most cost-effective and capable offeror.

Public Impact

Naval facilities in the Atlantic region, specifically managed by NAVFAC Atlantic SRM, are the primary beneficiaries of these engineering services. The services provided are crucial for the maintenance, repair, and potential upgrades of critical naval infrastructure. The contract supports the operational readiness and effectiveness of naval installations. The geographic impact is concentrated around naval bases managed by NAVFAC Atlantic, primarily in Virginia. The contract supports a joint venture, potentially creating or sustaining jobs within the engineering and technical services sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the scope of work expands beyond initial estimates, despite the fixed-price nature.
Dependence on the contractor's expertise and performance for critical infrastructure maintenance.
Risk associated with the joint venture structure, including potential coordination challenges or financial stability concerns.
Limited visibility into the specific technical performance metrics and quality control processes without further data.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive selection process.
Engineering services are essential for maintaining critical naval infrastructure.
The contractor is a joint venture, potentially bringing together specialized expertise.
The contract supports a specific, vital function for the Department of the Navy.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a vital part of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector is characterized by specialized expertise in design, planning, and project management for complex infrastructure. The market size for engineering services supporting federal agencies, particularly defense, is substantial, driven by the need to maintain and modernize extensive facilities and systems. This contract represents a specific instance of federal spending within this domain, contributing to the overall demand for engineering capabilities.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and the contractor is a joint venture (JACOBS/HDR). There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem through this specific award is likely minimal unless subcontracting opportunities are pursued by the prime contractor. Further investigation into subcontracting goals would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Navy and NAVFAC Atlantic. As a firm-fixed-price contract awarded through full and open competition, accountability is primarily driven by the contract's terms and performance requirements. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting mechanisms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Contracts
Department of Defense Engineering Services
Military Construction and Facilities Support
Third-Party Inspections Contracts
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep in engineering services contracts.
Reliance on contractor performance for critical infrastructure.
Adequacy of competition for firm-fixed-price contracts.
Ensuring quality control in third-party inspections.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $34.0 million to JACOBS/HDR, A JOINT VENTURE (NAVFAC ATLANTIC SRM). CNIC 3051B THIRD PARTY PPV INSPECTIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JACOBS/HDR, A JOINT VENTURE (NAVFAC ATLANTIC SRM).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $34.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-09-08. End: 2023-01-31.

What is the track record of Jacobs/HDR, individually and as a joint venture, in performing similar engineering services for the Department of Defense?

Assessing the track record of Jacobs/HDR requires examining their past performance on contracts with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Jacobs, as a large engineering firm, has a history of supporting various government projects, including infrastructure and facilities management. HDR also has significant experience in engineering and project management for public sector clients. When operating as a joint venture, their combined capabilities are leveraged. A detailed review would involve looking at past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and the successful completion of projects with similar scope and complexity. Specific data on their performance on NAVFAC contracts or similar naval facility projects would be particularly relevant for evaluating their suitability and reliability for this $34 million contract.

How does the $34 million contract value compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by NAVFAC or other military branches for facility support?

To benchmark the $34 million contract value, one would compare it against historical data for similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) or other branches of the Department of Defense. Factors such as the duration of the contract (510 days), the specific services required (third-party PPV inspections), and the geographic location (Virginia) are crucial for a meaningful comparison. If similar contracts for comparable services and durations have been awarded in the range of $20-40 million, then this contract appears to be within a reasonable market range. Conversely, if comparable contracts are significantly lower or higher, it might indicate potential overpricing or under-resourcing. Access to a database of federal contract awards, filtered by agency, service type, and value, would be necessary for a robust comparison.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract for engineering services, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk associated with this firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is that the contractor, Jacobs/HDR, bears the financial risk if costs exceed the agreed-upon price. This can lead to potential issues such as the contractor seeking change orders to increase the contract value if unforeseen complexities arise, or potentially cutting corners on quality to maintain profitability if cost overruns occur. Mitigation strategies employed by the government include thorough initial scope definition, robust oversight during contract performance, and clear contractual terms regarding deliverables and quality standards. The government's ability to monitor progress and enforce contract terms is crucial. The fact that it was awarded under full and open competition also suggests that multiple bidders assessed the risks and proposed prices accordingly, providing a baseline for acceptable risk and cost.

What is the expected impact of these engineering services on the operational effectiveness and readiness of the naval facilities supported?

These engineering services, specifically 'CNIC 3051B THIRD PARTY PPV INSPECTIONS,' are critical for ensuring the operational effectiveness and readiness of the naval facilities managed by CNIC (Commander, Navy Installations Command) and supported by NAVFAC Atlantic. PPV inspections (likely Pre-Purchase Verification or similar) are essential for verifying the condition and compliance of facilities and equipment before acquisition, lease, or significant modification. By ensuring that facilities meet required standards and that any procured assets are in good working order, these inspections prevent future operational disruptions, costly repairs, and safety hazards. This directly contributes to the Navy's ability to maintain its infrastructure, support its missions, and ensure the readiness of its personnel and assets.

How has federal spending on engineering services for naval facilities evolved over the past five years, and does this contract align with historical trends?

Analyzing federal spending on engineering services for naval facilities over the past five years would involve examining contract awards made by NAVFAC and other relevant Navy commands. This would include tracking the total dollar amount obligated annually, the types of services procured (e.g., design, inspection, project management), and the primary contracting vehicles used (e.g., IDIQs, specific task orders). This $34 million contract, awarded in late 2021 for services extending into early 2023, represents a specific expenditure within this broader trend. If historical spending shows a consistent demand for such services, averaging similar annual outlays, then this contract aligns with established patterns. Significant deviations from historical trends might warrant further investigation into the underlying reasons, such as new infrastructure initiatives, increased maintenance needs, or shifts in procurement strategies.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1100 N GLEBE RD STE 500, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,017,960

Exercised Options: $34,017,960

Current Obligation: $34,017,960

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 10

Total Subaward Amount: $5,419,693

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6247021D0008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline