State Department awarded $10.1M for architectural services to Moore Ruble Yudell over 7 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,149,840 ($10.1M)

Contractor: Moore Ruble Yudell

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2004-09-30

End Date: 2011-06-15

Contract Duration: 2,449 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 77

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: AE DESIGN SERVICES.

Place of Performance

Location: SANTA MONICA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 90405

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $10.1 million to MOORE RUBLE YUDELL for work described as: AE DESIGN SERVICES. Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in architectural design services. 2. The duration of the contract suggests a long-term need for these services. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates a defined scope and cost structure. 4. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 5. The geographic location of the awardee in California may have implications for project execution. 6. The contract's end date in 2011 suggests it is a historical award.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of over $10 million for architectural services over nearly seven years appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale government projects. However, without specific details on the scope of services rendered and the complexity of the projects undertaken, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar large-scale architectural contracts awarded by the State Department or other federal agencies during that period would provide a clearer picture of whether the pricing was competitive and reflected fair market value for the services provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple interested firms were allowed to submit bids. This process generally fosters price discovery and encourages competitive pricing among bidders. The fact that 77 bids were received suggests a high level of interest in the contract, which is a positive sign for competition. A broad competitive field typically leads to better outcomes for the government in terms of both cost and quality.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition for architectural services ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces. It also increases the likelihood of selecting the most qualified and cost-effective provider.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of State and its facilities, receiving architectural design services. The services delivered likely contributed to the planning, design, and potentially oversight of various state department facilities or projects. The geographic impact is not explicitly defined but could extend to facilities managed by the State Department domestically or internationally. The contract supported architectural and design professionals within the winning firm, contributing to employment in the sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Contract duration of nearly 7 years may indicate potential for scope creep or evolving requirements that could impact final costs.
Lack of specific performance metrics or deliverables in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the quality and effectiveness of the architectural services.
The significant award amount warrants scrutiny to ensure it aligns with the actual services rendered and project outcomes.
The contract's historical nature (ending in 2011) means current market rates and best practices may differ significantly.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent selection process.
The large number of bids received (77) indicates strong market interest and a competitive environment.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope was well-defined.
The contract was awarded to a specific firm, implying they met the necessary qualifications and requirements.

Sector Analysis

The architectural services sector is a critical component of the construction and public works industry, providing design, planning, and project management expertise. Federal spending in this area supports the development and maintenance of government infrastructure, facilities, and embassies. The market for architectural services is diverse, ranging from small specialized firms to large international design corporations. This contract, valued at over $10 million, falls into the category of significant federal investments in design services, likely for substantial projects. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale federal building design contracts.

Small Business Impact

The provided 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 stemming from a small business set-aside. The award to a presumably larger firm means that opportunities for small business participation would likely be through voluntary subcontracting by the prime contractor, the extent of which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for federal contracts typically involves the contracting agency (Department of State in this case) and potentially an Inspector General's office to ensure compliance and prevent fraud. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is published. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. The specific oversight mechanisms for this particular contract would depend on the agency's internal policies and the contract's specific clauses.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Facilities Management
Federal Building Design Contracts
Architectural and Engineering Services
Public Works Construction Projects

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Scope Definition
Performance Metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $10.1 million to MOORE RUBLE YUDELL. AE DESIGN SERVICES.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MOORE RUBLE YUDELL.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-09-30. End: 2011-06-15.

What specific types of architectural projects did AE Design Services undertake for the Department of State under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the architectural projects undertaken by AE Design Services (contractor Moore Ruble Yudell) for the Department of State. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541310 indicates 'Architectural Services,' which is broad. These services could range from designing new federal buildings, renovating existing structures, developing master plans for facilities, or providing specialized design consultations for embassies or other state department properties. Without further details from the contract's statement of work or performance reports, the precise scope remains undefined. However, given the contract's substantial value and duration, it likely encompassed significant projects requiring comprehensive architectural expertise.

How does the $10.1 million award compare to typical federal spending on architectural services for similar projects?

Comparing the $10.1 million award for architectural services to typical federal spending requires context regarding the scale and complexity of the projects undertaken. For large-scale federal projects, such as designing new embassies or major renovations of government buildings, an award of this magnitude over a seven-year period is not unusual. However, if the services were for smaller, less complex projects, it might represent a higher-than-average cost. Benchmarking would involve analyzing the average contract values for NAICS code 541310 awarded by the Department of State or other agencies for comparable facility types and project scopes during the contract period (2004-2011). Without that comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if this award was high or low relative to the market.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of Moore Ruble Yudell's services under this contract?

The provided summary data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or details about how the success of Moore Ruble Yudell's architectural services was evaluated under this contract. Typically, federal contracts include clauses related to performance standards, timeliness, adherence to budget (if applicable to design phases), quality of deliverables (e.g., drawings, specifications), and client satisfaction. The Department of State would have had internal mechanisms to monitor progress and assess the quality of the architectural designs and related services provided. However, without access to the contract's statement of work, performance reports, or contract close-out documentation, identifying the specific KPIs used is not possible from this dataset.

What is the track record of Moore Ruble Yudell with federal government contracts, particularly with the Department of State?

The provided data indicates that Moore Ruble Yudell was awarded this specific contract (ID: DCA) by the Department of State for architectural services. To assess their broader track record with the federal government, one would need to consult comprehensive federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) to identify all contracts awarded to this entity. This would reveal the number of contracts, their values, the agencies involved, and the types of services rendered. A review of past performance evaluations, if publicly available, would also provide insights into their reliability, quality of work, and adherence to contract terms on previous federal engagements. Without this broader search, we can only confirm their engagement with the State Department on this particular $10.1M contract.

Were there any significant risks identified or mitigation strategies employed during the performance of this contract?

The provided summary data does not explicitly list any identified risks or mitigation strategies associated with this contract. However, for a contract of this duration and value involving architectural services for a federal agency like the Department of State, potential risks could include design changes, unforeseen site conditions, delays in approvals, contractor performance issues, or budget overruns (though less likely with a firm fixed-price contract if scope is managed). Effective risk management would typically involve proactive identification of potential issues by both the contractor and the agency, clear communication channels, contingency planning, and robust contract administration to address any problems that arise promptly.

Industry Classification

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

Offers Received: 77

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 933 PICO BLVD, SANTA MONICA, CA, 36

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,149,840

Exercised Options: $10,149,840

Current Obligation: $10,149,840

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Timeline