DoD's $22M Engineering Services Contract Awarded to BANC 3, INC. via Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,974,542 ($22.0M)

Contractor: Banc 3, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-09-29

End Date: 2018-10-27

Contract Duration: 1,489 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF THIS CONTRACT AWARDS A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 24,251,385.00 AND FUNDS AN AMOUNT OF $1,385,199.72.

Place of Performance

Location: PRINCETON, MERCER County, NEW JERSEY, 08540

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.0 million to BANC 3, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF THIS CONTRACT AWARDS A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 24,251,385.00 AND FUNDS AN AMOUNT OF $1,385,199.72. Key points: 1. Contract value of $21.97 million for engineering services. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of approximately 4 years suggests a significant project scope. 4. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 5. Services are categorized under Engineering Services (NAICS 541330). 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD. 7. The contractor, BANC 3, INC., received this award for services in New Jersey.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $21.97 million for engineering services appears to be within a reasonable range for a multi-year federal contract of this nature. However, without specific benchmarks for the exact engineering services provided, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type introduces inherent risk for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee. This necessitates robust oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and the fixed fee is justified by the scope of work.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which is a standard competitive procedure. The presence of 5 bidders suggests a healthy level of competition for this engineering services requirement. A competitive process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of this award is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely resulted in a more cost-effective solution than if the contract had been awarded without adequate competition.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from specialized engineering services to support its operations and infrastructure. The contract delivers essential engineering expertise, likely contributing to military readiness and facility management. Services are geographically focused in New Jersey, impacting the local economy and workforce. The contract may create or sustain jobs for engineers and technical professionals in the New Jersey area.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type carries a risk of cost escalation if not closely monitored.
The exclusion of sources in the competition type, while part of a standard procedure, warrants understanding the rationale behind any initial exclusions.
Limited information on the specific engineering deliverables makes it difficult to assess performance outcomes definitively.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
The contract duration of nearly 5 years suggests a stable, long-term need for the services.
The contract was awarded to BANC 3, INC., a known entity in the contracting space.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services represent a significant segment of the federal contracting market, encompassing a wide range of technical expertise required by various government agencies. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. Federal spending in engineering services is driven by infrastructure projects, defense needs, research and development, and operational support. Benchmarking this contract's value requires comparison against similar engineering support contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other agencies for comparable services and durations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not a small business set-aside, as 'sb' is false. While the total award amount is $24,251,385.00, the funded amount is $1,385,199.72. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses within the provided data. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities exist and how they might impact the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the administrative contracting officer (ACO) within the Department of the Army. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates diligent monitoring of costs, performance, and adherence to the contract terms. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected or reported.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Engineering Support Contracts
Army Corps of Engineers Services
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Contracts
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Risk (CPFF)
Performance Monitoring Intensity
Scope Definition Clarity

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.0 million to BANC 3, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF THIS CONTRACT AWARDS A TOTAL SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE IN THE AMOUNT OF $ 24,251,385.00 AND FUNDS AN AMOUNT OF $1,385,199.72.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BANC 3, 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 $22.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-09-29. End: 2018-10-27.

What is the track record of BANC 3, INC. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

BANC 3, INC. has a history of receiving federal contracts, including those from the Department of Defense. Analyzing their past performance, including contract types, values, and any reported issues or successes, provides insight into their reliability and capability. For instance, reviewing their award history in FPDS or SAM.gov can reveal patterns in their service delivery, adherence to schedules, and cost management. A positive track record with similar agencies and contract types suggests a lower risk for this current engagement. Conversely, a history of performance issues, disputes, or significant cost overruns on prior contracts would raise concerns about their suitability for this $21.97 million engineering services award.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for similar engineering services?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or involves a high degree of uncertainty, making it difficult to estimate costs accurately upfront. In such cases, the government agrees to pay the contractor's allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers more flexibility for the contractor to adapt to evolving requirements but shifts more cost risk to the government. Other types like Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) or Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) introduce performance incentives. For engineering services, FFP is preferred when requirements are stable and well-defined, offering the government the best price certainty. CPFF is generally considered less desirable from a cost control perspective than FFP but may be necessary for complex, R&D-heavy, or evolving engineering tasks.

What are the potential risks associated with a CPFF contract for engineering services, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with CPFF contracts is cost escalation, as the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred. Without stringent oversight, costs can exceed initial estimates, and the fixed fee, while predetermined, is applied to a potentially larger cost base. Mitigation strategies include robust cost accounting standards, detailed review and approval of all incurred costs, clear definition of allowable vs. unallowable costs in the contract, and regular performance reviews. The government contracting officer and administrative contracting officer play a crucial role in monitoring expenditures, ensuring work is progressing as planned, and validating the necessity and reasonableness of all costs. Establishing clear performance metrics and milestones also helps ensure the contractor remains focused on delivering value within the anticipated scope.

What is the typical duration and value range for similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of the Army?

The typical duration and value for engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of the Army can vary significantly based on the specific nature of the services, project complexity, and funding availability. Contracts can range from short-term, task-order based agreements to multi-year, comprehensive support efforts. Multi-year contracts, like this one with a duration of approximately 4 years, are common for ongoing operational support, major infrastructure design, or specialized technical services. Values can range from hundreds of thousands to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. This $21.97 million contract with a nearly 5-year period of performance falls within a moderate range for significant, long-term engineering support requirements within the Army's portfolio.

How does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' process differ from standard full and open competition?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' (often referred to as FAR 6.302-1 or similar justifications) implies that while the competition was intended to be full and open, specific sources may have been excluded initially based on certain criteria, or the process involved a justification for other than full and open competition that was subsequently overcome or managed within a competitive framework. Standard 'Full and Open Competition' (FAR 6.102) involves soliciting offers from all responsible sources and awarding to the responsible source that provides the best value. The 'Exclusion of Sources' part suggests a more nuanced process, possibly involving initial market research that identified specific capabilities or a justification for excluding certain types of sources before opening it more broadly, or perhaps it's a specific procedural step within a larger competitive framework. The key takeaway is that it was not a sole-source award and involved multiple bidders, aiming for competitive pricing.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W56KGU14R0002

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 ALEXANDER PARK STE 350, PRINCETON, NJ, 08540

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $36,830,513

Exercised Options: $21,974,542

Current Obligation: $21,974,542

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline