DoD's $59.1M Engineering Services Contract Awarded to Resolution Consultants for Naval Support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $5,910,779 ($5.9M)

Contractor: Resolution Consultants - an Aecom-Ensafe Joint Venture

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-02-22

End Date: 2028-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,682 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 24M-AOR WIDE ADDRESS MCL PROMULGATION AT PREVIOUS COMPLETE PRIORI

Place of Performance

Location: JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL County, FLORIDA, 32212

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $5.9 million to RESOLUTION CONSULTANTS - AN AECOM-ENSAFE JOINT VENTURE for work described as: 24M-AOR WIDE ADDRESS MCL PROMULGATION AT PREVIOUS COMPLETE PRIORI Key points: 1. Contract awarded for engineering services, indicating a need for specialized technical expertise. 2. The contract is a Delivery Order under a larger contract vehicle, suggesting a phased approach to service delivery. 3. The awardee is a joint venture, potentially bringing together diverse capabilities. 4. The contract duration spans over four years, implying a long-term requirement for these services. 5. The pricing structure is Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes performance but requires careful oversight. 6. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $59.1 million over approximately 4.5 years for engineering services requires benchmarking against similar contracts. Without specific details on the scope of work and deliverables, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for performance incentives, but it also necessitates rigorous monitoring to ensure costs remain reasonable and that award fees are justified by exceptional performance. Comparing this to other large-scale engineering support contracts for naval operations would provide better context on its pricing and overall value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but this procurement method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service offerings for the government. The open competition suggests that the agency sought the best value from a wide range of potential contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it maximizes the potential for competitive pricing and encourages a broad base of contractors to vie for government work, potentially driving down costs.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from specialized engineering services to support its operations. The contract will likely involve a range of engineering disciplines crucial for naval infrastructure and systems. The geographic impact is centered in Florida, where the services will be performed. The contract may have implications for the engineering workforce in Florida and potentially nationwide, depending on the contractor's staffing strategy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently, as contractor profits are tied to performance metrics that may be subjective.
Lack of specific details on the scope of work makes it difficult to fully assess the value proposition and potential risks associated with the engineering services required.
The duration of the contract (over 4 years) necessitates ongoing monitoring to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness of the services provided.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that likely yielded a fair price.
The joint venture structure of the awardee may bring a comprehensive set of skills and experience to the contract.
The contract aims to provide essential engineering services, indicating a clear and defined need within the Department of Defense.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector is characterized by high demand for specialized expertise in areas such as civil, mechanical, electrical, and systems engineering. Government spending in this area is substantial, supporting infrastructure development, research and development, and operational support across various agencies. The market size for engineering services is significant, with numerous firms, from large corporations to specialized small businesses, competing for contracts. This particular award contributes to the overall federal spending in engineering support for defense-related activities.

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 for small businesses mandated by a set-aside. However, the prime contractor, a joint venture, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill specific aspects of the engineering services, depending on their own subcontracting plans and the availability of specialized small business capabilities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Cost Plus Award Fee contract will be critical. The Department of the Navy will need robust mechanisms to monitor costs, track performance against award fee criteria, and ensure the efficient use of taxpayer funds. Transparency in reporting on expenditures and progress will be essential. The contract likely falls under the purview of relevant Inspector General offices for audit and investigation, ensuring accountability.

Related Government Programs

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Contracts
Department of Defense Engineering Support Services
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Contracts
Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) requires diligent oversight to manage costs and ensure award fees are justified.
Joint venture structure may introduce coordination or integration challenges.
Long contract duration necessitates ongoing monitoring for relevance and effectiveness.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $5.9 million to RESOLUTION CONSULTANTS - AN AECOM-ENSAFE JOINT VENTURE. 24M-AOR WIDE ADDRESS MCL PROMULGATION AT PREVIOUS COMPLETE PRIORI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RESOLUTION CONSULTANTS - AN AECOM-ENSAFE JOINT VENTURE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $5.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-02-22. End: 2028-09-30.

What is the specific scope of engineering services required under this contract, and how does it align with the Department of the Navy's strategic objectives?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Engineering Services' (nd: Engineering Services) and falls under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330, which covers Engineering Services. The awardee is Resolution Consultants - an AECOM-Ensafe Joint Venture, and the contract is managed by the Department of the Navy (sa: Department of the Navy) within the Department of Defense (ag: Department of Defense). While the specific scope is not detailed, engineering services for the Navy typically encompass a wide range of activities such as design, analysis, testing, and consulting for naval platforms, infrastructure, weapons systems, and operational support. These services are crucial for maintaining and modernizing naval capabilities, ensuring operational readiness, and supporting long-term strategic goals related to national security and maritime dominance. The contract's duration of over four years suggests a sustained need for these engineering functions.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) pricing structure for this $59.1 million contract compare to industry standards for similar engineering services?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure is common in government contracting, particularly for services where performance outcomes can be difficult to define precisely upfront or where innovation and exceptional performance are highly valued. For engineering services, CPAF allows the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a fee that is composed of a fixed base fee and an award amount, which is earned based on meeting or exceeding performance objectives. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPAF offers more flexibility but requires stringent oversight to manage costs and ensure the award fee is truly earned. Industry standards for engineering services often see a mix of contract types, including fixed-price, cost-reimbursable, and CPAF, depending on the project's nature and risk. The effectiveness of CPAF hinges on well-defined performance metrics and objective evaluation criteria. Without specific details on the award fee criteria for this $59.1 million contract, it's challenging to benchmark its specific value proposition against industry norms, but the structure itself is a recognized, albeit complex, method for incentivizing performance in service contracts.

What are the potential risks associated with a joint venture performing engineering services for the Department of the Navy, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

Joint ventures can bring together complementary expertise and resources, potentially enhancing service delivery. However, risks can include coordination challenges between partners, differing business cultures, potential conflicts of interest, and unclear lines of responsibility. For this contract, Resolution Consultants - an AECOM-Ensafe Joint Venture is performing engineering services for the Department of the Navy. Mitigation strategies typically involve a robust joint venture agreement that clearly defines roles, responsibilities, profit/loss sharing, and dispute resolution mechanisms. The government's oversight team plays a crucial role in monitoring the joint venture's performance, ensuring seamless integration of efforts, and addressing any operational or contractual issues promptly. The CPAF structure also provides an incentive for the joint venture to perform effectively to maximize their award fee.

Given the contract's duration of over four years, how will the Department of the Navy ensure the continued relevance and effectiveness of the engineering services provided?

Ensuring the continued relevance and effectiveness of engineering services over a multi-year contract requires proactive management and adaptability. The Department of the Navy will likely employ several strategies. Firstly, the performance work statement (PWS) or statement of work (SOW) should include mechanisms for periodic review and potential modification to incorporate evolving technological advancements, changing mission requirements, or lessons learned. Secondly, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure itself incentivizes the contractor to remain aligned with evolving needs, as performance objectives can be adjusted or updated. Regular performance reviews, progress meetings, and feedback loops between the government contracting officer's representative (COR) and the contractor are essential. Furthermore, the Navy may conduct market research periodically to ensure that the services being provided remain competitive and aligned with best practices in the engineering sector.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services by the Department of the Navy in Florida, and how does this $59.1 million award fit within that context?

The provided data indicates this specific contract (aw: DELIVERY ORDER, sd: 2024-02-22, ed: 2028-09-30, a: 5910779) is for engineering services in Florida (st: FLORIDA, sn: FLORIDA). To understand its context within historical spending, one would need access to historical contract databases and spending reports from the Department of the Navy (DoN) specifically for Florida. The DoN has a significant presence in Florida, with numerous naval installations and facilities requiring extensive engineering support for construction, maintenance, and modernization. Awards for engineering services can range from small, localized projects to large, multi-year contracts like this one. A $59.1 million award over approximately 4.5 years for engineering services is a substantial contract, suggesting a significant requirement. Without historical data, it's difficult to definitively state if this award is higher or lower than average, but it indicates a considerable investment in engineering capabilities within the state to support naval operations.

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: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 S GRAND AVE SUITE 900, LOS ANGELES, CA, 90071

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $5,910,779

Exercised Options: $5,910,779

Current Obligation: $5,910,779

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $455,845

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6247022D0005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline