Navy awards $4.2M contract for HM&E ship systems engineering support to Noblis MSD LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,197,337 ($4.2M)

Contractor: Noblis MSD LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-11-09

End Date: 2027-11-08

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: PROGRAM AND PROJECT CONTRACTOR SUPPORT WITH A FOCUS ON TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND PLANNING, SCHEDULE, COST, RESOURCING AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR ALL LIFE CYCLE PHASES OF INTEGRATED HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL (HM&E) SHIP AND SHIP SYSTEMS

Place of Performance

Location: PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19112

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $4.2 million to NOBLIS MSD LLC for work described as: PROGRAM AND PROJECT CONTRACTOR SUPPORT WITH A FOCUS ON TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND PLANNING, SCHEDULE, COST, RESOURCING AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR ALL LIFE CYCLE PHASES OF INTEGRATED HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL (HM&E) SHIP AND SHIP SYSTEMS Key points: 1. Contract focuses on technical requirements, planning, schedule, cost, resourcing, and risk management for ship systems. 2. Noblis MSD LLC, the contractor, will provide support across all life cycle phases. 3. The contract is a Cost Plus Fixed Fee type, indicating potential for cost overruns. 4. Awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 5. The contract duration is 5 years, aligning with long-term defense needs. 6. The specific NAICS code (541330) points to engineering services, a critical support function.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $4.2 million over five years averages to approximately $840,000 annually. Benchmarking this against similar engineering support contracts for complex defense systems is challenging without more specific data on the scope of services. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly, as it allows the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a negotiated fee. The value appears reasonable for specialized engineering support in the defense sector, but a detailed cost breakdown and comparison to industry benchmarks for similar services would be needed for a more definitive assessment of value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that the Department of the Navy sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of 6 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this type of specialized engineering service. A competitive process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more innovative solutions as contractors vie for the award. The specific number of bids received (6) provides a reasonable baseline for assessing the market's interest and the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down costs through market forces and encourages a wider pool of contractors to offer their services, potentially leading to better value.

Public Impact

The U.S. Navy benefits from specialized engineering expertise to ensure the effective operation and maintenance of its vessels. Services delivered include technical requirements definition, planning, scheduling, cost control, resourcing, and risk management. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of the Navy's operational and maintenance facilities. Workforce implications include the employment of skilled engineers and technical professionals by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type may lead to higher costs if not managed effectively.
Limited public information on specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess contractor performance beyond contract award.
The duration of the contract (5 years) requires ongoing vigilance to ensure continued value and alignment with evolving Navy needs.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive market.
Multiple bidders (6) suggest a robust selection process.
Focus on critical ship systems engineering demonstrates alignment with core defense mission requirements.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting the defense industry's need for complex naval systems. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by the continuous need for modernization, maintenance, and upgrades of military assets. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other contracts for similar technical support services provided to naval or other defense branches, focusing on the scope of work and contract type. The size of this contract ($4.2M) is moderate within the broader defense engineering landscape.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'ss: false' and 'sb: false'. The primary contractor, Noblis MSD LLC, is likely a mid-to-large-sized business. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract award is likely minimal, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses in their supply chain independently.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Navy's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are embedded within the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, requiring the contractor to justify all costs incurred. Transparency is facilitated through the contract reporting mechanisms, though detailed performance reports are typically not public. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Naval Ship Systems Engineering Support
Defense Engineering Services
Integrated Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical (HM&E) Systems Support
Department of the Navy Procurement
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Broad scope of services necessitates strong integration and coordination capabilities from the contractor.
Long contract duration requires ongoing performance monitoring to ensure sustained value.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $4.2 million to NOBLIS MSD LLC. PROGRAM AND PROJECT CONTRACTOR SUPPORT WITH A FOCUS ON TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS AND PLANNING, SCHEDULE, COST, RESOURCING AND RISK MANAGEMENT SUPPORT FOR ALL LIFE CYCLE PHASES OF INTEGRATED HULL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL (HM&E) SHIP AND SHIP SYSTEMS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NOBLIS MSD LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-11-09. End: 2027-11-08.

What is the track record of Noblis MSD LLC in providing similar engineering support services to the Department of Defense?

Noblis MSD LLC has a history of providing professional services, including engineering and technical support, to various government agencies, particularly within the defense sector. While specific details on past performance for HM&E ship systems are not provided in this data snippet, Noblis as a whole has experience in areas such as systems engineering, acquisition support, and program management for defense clients. Their ability to secure this contract suggests they met the performance and capability requirements set forth by the Department of the Navy. A deeper dive into their contract history, past performance evaluations, and any reported issues would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their track record.

How does the $4.2 million contract value compare to similar engineering support contracts for naval vessels?

The $4.2 million contract value over five years, averaging $840,000 annually, is a moderate figure for specialized engineering support within the defense sector. However, direct comparisons are difficult without knowing the precise scope of work, the complexity of the ship systems involved, and the specific deliverables required. Contracts for major platform design or overhaul can run into tens or hundreds of millions. This contract appears to focus on ongoing technical requirements, planning, and risk management rather than large-scale design or construction. Benchmarking would require analyzing contracts with similar service descriptions and durations awarded to other naval support providers.

What are the primary risks associated with this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for the Department of the Navy?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, the government agrees to pay the contractor's allowable costs plus a fixed fee. If the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, the government bears that additional expense. This necessitates robust oversight and rigorous cost tracking by the Navy to ensure that costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable. The fixed fee provides the contractor with an incentive to control costs, but the ultimate financial risk lies with the government if costs escalate significantly. Effective management and clear definition of allowable costs are crucial to mitigate this risk.

How effective is the competition level (6 bidders) in ensuring optimal value for taxpayers on this contract?

Having six bidders for this contract suggests a reasonably competitive environment. This level of competition generally provides the government with a good selection of qualified offerors and encourages competitive pricing. It indicates that the market has sufficient capacity and interest to support the requirement. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, six is often considered a healthy number that balances competition with the administrative burden of evaluating numerous proposals. The key to ensuring optimal value lies not just in the number of bidders, but also in the clarity of the solicitation, the evaluation criteria, and the government's ability to negotiate effectively based on the competitive offers received.

What are the historical spending patterns for HM&E ship systems engineering support within the Department of the Navy?

Historical spending patterns for HM&E ship systems engineering support within the Department of the Navy are substantial and ongoing, reflecting the continuous need to maintain and modernize a large fleet. This spending encompasses a wide range of activities, from initial design and development to sustainment, upgrades, and lifecycle management. Contracts can vary significantly in value, from smaller, specialized support task orders like this one, to multi-billion dollar platform development programs. Analyzing historical data would reveal trends in contract types (e.g., FFP vs. CPFF), key contractors, and the overall budget allocated to naval engineering and technical services over time.

What are the potential performance challenges given the broad scope of 'technical requirements and planning, schedule, cost, resourcing and risk management'?

The broad scope presents potential performance challenges primarily related to integration and coordination. Ensuring seamless management across all these critical areas—technical requirements, planning, schedule, cost, resourcing, and risk—requires sophisticated project management capabilities. A key challenge is maintaining alignment; for instance, changes in technical requirements can cascade through schedule, cost, and risk. Effective communication and robust systems for tracking interdependencies are vital. The contractor must demonstrate a mature capability to manage these interconnected elements holistically to prevent delays, cost overruns, or technical deficiencies.

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: N6449821R3157

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1 CRESCENT DR STE 203, PHILADELPHIA, PA, 19112

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,703,789

Exercised Options: $12,386,098

Current Obligation: $4,197,337

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $2,245,340

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017819D8085

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline