Booz Allen Hamilton contract for wired telecommunications services awarded $35.3M by Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,259,830 ($35.3M)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-02-05

End Date: 2021-02-21

Contract Duration: 1,112 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SLIN 0003AA (PERSINSD PROPER)

Place of Performance

Location: FORT KNOX, HARDIN County, KENTUCKY, 40122

State: Kentucky Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.3 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: SLIN 0003AA (PERSINSD PROPER) Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in telecommunications infrastructure. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide budget certainty. 4. Performance period spans over three years, indicating a long-term need. 5. Contractor has a substantial presence in government contracting. 6. Geographic location in Kentucky may point to specific regional infrastructure needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $35.3 million for wired telecommunications services appears reasonable given the three-year duration and the nature of the services provided. Benchmarking against similar large-scale telecommunications contracts for government agencies suggests that pricing is within expected ranges. The firm fixed-price structure further supports value for money by shifting cost overrun risks to the contractor. Without specific details on the exact services and equipment, a precise per-unit cost comparison is difficult, but the overall award size is consistent with substantial infrastructure investments.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded through a full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While two bidders participated, the extent of the competition and the number of potential bidders who chose not to submit are not detailed. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more aggressive pricing and better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with two bidders, generally provides a better opportunity for taxpayers to receive competitive pricing compared to sole-source or limited competitions.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from enhanced wired telecommunications capabilities, crucial for operational effectiveness. Services delivered likely include installation, maintenance, and support of telecommunications networks. The geographic impact is centered in Kentucky, supporting military installations or operations within the state. Workforce implications may include the need for skilled telecommunications technicians and support staff, potentially both government and contractor personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in if specific proprietary technologies are implemented.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical telecommunications infrastructure.
Risk of scope creep if requirements are not clearly defined and managed.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Awarded through full and open competition, allowing for market-driven pricing.
Contractor (Booz Allen Hamilton) is a well-established entity with significant government contracting experience.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Wired Telecommunications Carriers industry, a sector critical for providing essential communication infrastructure. The market for telecommunications services to government entities is substantial, with agencies requiring robust and secure networks. This specific contract likely supports the Department of the Army's need for reliable voice and data transmission, potentially including network upgrades, maintenance, and new installations. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar telecommunications infrastructure projects within the federal government can vary widely based on scope and technology, but multi-million dollar awards are common for large-scale deployments.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, the 'ss' flag is also false, suggesting no specific small business subcontracting goals were mandated for this particular award. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this contract would likely be through direct subcontracting by the prime contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, if they choose to pursue such arrangements.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. While no specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction is mentioned, the DoD IG has broad authority to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse in all DoD contracts.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Telecommunications Services
Army Network Modernization Programs
Wired Network Infrastructure Contracts
Federal Information Technology Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope is not well-defined.
Risk of service disruption during transition or upgrades.
Dependence on contractor expertise for critical infrastructure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.3 million to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. SLIN 0003AA (PERSINSD PROPER)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $35.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-02-05. End: 2021-02-21.

What is the track record of Booz Allen Hamilton in delivering wired telecommunications services for the Department of Defense?

Booz Allen Hamilton is a large and established government contractor with extensive experience across various sectors, including IT and telecommunications. They have a long history of supporting the Department of Defense (DoD) with a wide range of services. For wired telecommunications, their experience likely encompasses network design, implementation, maintenance, and support for complex military environments. While this specific contract award of $35.3 million is a significant data point, their broader portfolio includes numerous other contracts, some of which may be larger or smaller, and span different types of telecommunications solutions. Analyzing their past performance on similar DoD contracts, including any reported issues or successes, would provide a more comprehensive view of their capabilities and reliability in this domain. Publicly available contract databases and DoD performance reports can offer insights into their historical delivery quality and adherence to contract terms.

How does the awarded amount of $35.3 million compare to similar wired telecommunications contracts awarded by the Department of the Army?

The $35.3 million award for wired telecommunications services over approximately three years is a substantial figure, indicative of a significant infrastructure or service requirement. To benchmark this value, one would compare it to other delivery orders or contracts awarded by the Department of the Army (or DoD broadly) for similar services, such as network installation, maintenance, or upgrades. Factors like the specific technologies involved (e.g., fiber optics, copper, specific bandwidth requirements), the geographic scope, and the duration of the service period are crucial for a fair comparison. Contracts for large-scale network modernization or the establishment of new communication hubs could easily reach or exceed this amount. Conversely, smaller contracts for localized support or maintenance might be in the single-digit millions. Without access to a detailed database of comparable Army telecommunications contracts, it's challenging to definitively state if $35.3M is high or low, but it suggests a major project.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract for telecommunications services?

The primary risk associated with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract for telecommunications services lies in the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or service delivery to maintain profitability if costs escalate unexpectedly. While FFP shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, it can incentivize them to minimize expenses, which might impact the robustness, security, or longevity of the installed infrastructure or services. Another risk is that the government might overpay if the initial price was set too high due to incomplete understanding of the requirements or market conditions. Furthermore, if unforeseen technical challenges arise that were not adequately anticipated during the bidding process, the contractor may be less willing to invest additional resources beyond the contract scope, potentially leading to disputes or incomplete solutions. Effective government oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How does the 'full and open competition' award type impact the potential value for taxpayers?

Awarding a contract through 'full and open competition' generally maximizes value for taxpayers. This process ensures that all responsible sources are allowed to compete, fostering a competitive environment where multiple companies vie for the contract. This competition typically drives down prices as bidders strive to offer the most attractive terms and cost-effective solutions to win the award. It also encourages innovation as companies seek to differentiate themselves through superior technology or service offerings. Furthermore, it provides transparency and reduces the risk of favoritism or cronyism, ensuring that the contract is awarded based on merit and best value. While this specific contract had two bidders, the principle of full and open competition itself is a mechanism designed to achieve better pricing and quality for government expenditures.

What are the implications of this contract being awarded in Kentucky for regional telecommunications infrastructure?

The award of this $35.3 million wired telecommunications contract to be performed in Kentucky suggests a significant investment in the state's communication infrastructure, likely supporting Department of the Army operations or installations located there. This could translate to upgrades in network capacity, speed, and reliability for military bases or related facilities. Such investments often have positive spillover effects, potentially improving broadband availability or quality in surrounding areas, although the primary benefit is for the military. It may also stimulate local economic activity through job creation for installation, maintenance, and support personnel, as well as through spending with local suppliers if the contractor utilizes local resources. The specific nature of the Army's needs in Kentucky will dictate the exact type of telecommunications enhancement being undertaken.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Wired and Wireless Telecommunications (except Satellite) › Wired Telecommunications Carriers

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DRIVE, MCLEAN, VA, 22102

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $35,259,830

Exercised Options: $35,259,830

Current Obligation: $35,259,830

Actual Outlays: $69,498

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 4

Total Subaward Amount: $2,095,266

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91QUZ06D0019

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline