DoD's $15.6M contract with CACI for management consulting services awarded via full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,592,536 ($15.6M)

Contractor: CACI, Inc. - Federal

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-07-01

End Date: 2018-12-10

Contract Duration: 3,449 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: CHANTILLY, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20151

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.6 million to CACI, INC. - FEDERAL for work described as: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value represents a moderate investment in administrative and management consulting. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive pricing environment. 3. Contract duration of nearly 9.5 years indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 5. Services are categorized under administrative management and general management consulting. 6. Awarded by the Defense Logistics Agency, indicating a focus on operational support.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award value of $15.6 million over approximately 9.5 years suggests an average annual spend of around $1.64 million. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar management consulting contracts for the DoD would be necessary to determine if this pricing is competitive. The firm fixed-price structure, however, provides cost certainty for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The presence of 4 offers indicates a reasonable level of competition for this requirement. This competitive process is generally expected to drive more favorable pricing and service offerings for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a market-driven price for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from enhanced administrative and management consulting capabilities. Services likely support the operational efficiency and strategic planning of the Defense Logistics Agency. Geographic impact is primarily within the agency's operational areas, likely concentrated in Virginia. Workforce implications may include support roles for government personnel and potential contractor staff augmentation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to potential complacency or reduced innovation over time if not actively managed.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the quality and impact of services delivered.
Reliance on a single contractor for an extended period might limit flexibility in adapting to evolving agency needs.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty and transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process that likely secured competitive pricing.
Awarded by a major agency (DLA) indicates the services are deemed critical for operational support.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically administrative management and general management consulting. This sector is crucial for government operations, providing expertise in areas like organizational efficiency, strategic planning, and process improvement. The market for these services is large and competitive, with numerous firms capable of supporting federal agencies. The $15.6 million total value over its term is a moderate-sized contract within this domain.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary focus was on full and open competition. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether CACI, Inc. - Federal utilizes small businesses in its subcontracting efforts, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the administrative contracting officer at the Defense Logistics Agency. Performance monitoring and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Management and Consulting Services
Defense Logistics Agency Support Contracts
Professional Services Contracts
Administrative Support Services

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may lead to outdated requirements.
Potential for contractor complacency over extended period.
Limited visibility into specific performance metrics.
Scope definition may not fully align with current needs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.6 million to CACI, INC. - FEDERAL. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CACI, INC. - FEDERAL.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-07-01. End: 2018-12-10.

What was the specific nature of the administrative management and general management consulting services provided under this contract?

The provided data categorizes the services under NAICS code 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services). While the specific tasks are not detailed, such services typically encompass areas like organizational structure analysis, strategic planning support, process improvement initiatives, operational efficiency assessments, and policy development. For the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), these services could have been directed towards optimizing supply chain management, improving internal administrative processes, enhancing resource allocation, or supporting strategic decision-making within the agency.

How does the total contract value of $15.6 million compare to similar management consulting contracts awarded by the DoD?

The total contract value of $15.6 million over a period of nearly 9.5 years equates to an average annual expenditure of approximately $1.64 million. This figure is within the moderate range for management consulting services within a large federal agency like the Department of Defense. Larger, more complex strategic initiatives or agency-wide transformations could command significantly higher values, potentially tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Conversely, smaller, task-specific consulting engagements would be considerably less. Without access to a detailed benchmark of comparable DLA or DoD consulting contracts with similar scopes and durations, a precise comparison is difficult, but it does not appear to be an exceptionally large or small award in the context of federal consulting spending.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this duration (over 9 years)?

Contracts spanning nearly a decade present several potential risks. Firstly, there's the risk of scope creep or misalignment with evolving agency needs; the initial requirements might become outdated over such a long period, requiring significant modification or potentially leading to suboptimal service delivery. Secondly, long-term reliance on a single contractor can reduce flexibility and inhibit the introduction of new ideas or technologies from other market players. Thirdly, there's a potential for contractor complacency, where the incentive to innovate or maintain peak performance may diminish over time if not actively managed through performance reviews and contract modifications. Finally, the government might lock itself into a specific approach or solution that becomes less effective as the operational environment changes.

How effective was the competition, indicated by 4 offers, in driving value for the government?

The presence of 4 offers under a full and open competition is generally a positive indicator of effective competition. It suggests that multiple firms were interested and capable of performing the required services, creating a competitive environment that typically pressures bidders to offer more favorable pricing and terms. While 4 offers are good, the 'effectiveness' in driving value is best assessed by comparing the awarded price against the independent government cost estimate or against prices for similar services in the market. Without that comparative data, we can infer that the competition likely contributed to a reasonable price, but the degree of value maximization is not definitively quantifiable from the data alone.

What is CACI, Inc. - Federal's track record with similar government contracts?

CACI, Inc. - Federal is a large and established government contractor with a significant portfolio of IT and professional services contracts across various federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. Their track record generally includes a wide range of services, from IT modernization and cybersecurity to management consulting and support services. While this specific contract was awarded in 2009 and concluded in 2018, CACI has consistently secured large federal contracts. A deeper analysis would involve reviewing their past performance evaluations, any past performance issues or commendations, and their success rate in competitive bidding for similar service categories to fully assess their track record for this type of engagement.

What does the 'firm fixed price' contract type imply for government risk and contractor incentive?

A 'firm fixed price' (FFP) contract type is generally favored by the government when the scope of work is well-defined and risks are manageable. Under an FFP contract, the contractor agrees to a set price for the specified goods or services, regardless of the actual costs incurred. This shifts the primary financial risk of cost overruns to the contractor, providing the government with significant cost certainty. For the contractor, the incentive is to perform the work efficiently and control costs to maximize profit. However, it can also incentivize contractors to cut corners if not carefully monitored, or to resist changes to the scope of work, as any deviation typically requires a formal contract modification and price adjustment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CACI International Inc

Address: 14370 NEWBROOK DRIVE, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,402,536

Exercised Options: $16,402,536

Current Obligation: $15,592,536

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS10F0226K

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline