DoD's $29M engineering services contract awarded to Longbow LLC raises questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,961,149 ($29.0M)

Contractor: Longbow LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-03-15

End Date: 2016-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,477 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32819

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.0 million to LONGBOW LLC for work described as: TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. The contract type, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, can incentivize cost overruns. 3. Performance period of over four years suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. The specific engineering services provided are not detailed, making direct value assessment difficult. 5. The absence of small business participation raises concerns about broader economic impact. 6. Oversight mechanisms for this sole-source contract require scrutiny to ensure accountability.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $28.96 million contract is challenging due to the lack of competitive bidding and detailed service descriptions. Awarded on a sole-source basis, it's difficult to compare pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while offering flexibility, can lead to higher costs if not managed rigorously, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee. Without competitive data, it's hard to ascertain if the government received optimal value for the engineering services rendered over its four-year duration.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or qualifications required for the service. However, the lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the best possible pricing and terms. It also raises questions about whether a more competitive process could have been employed or if the justification for sole-source was fully warranted.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can result in higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This limits the government's purchasing power and potentially diverts funds that could be used for other critical needs.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from specialized engineering services to support its operations. The contract likely supports critical defense infrastructure or technological development. Services are geographically focused in Florida, suggesting a specific regional need. The contract may indirectly support a specialized engineering workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated costs for taxpayers.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can incentivize higher spending.
Limited transparency on specific services provided hinders performance evaluation.
No indication of small business involvement or subcontracting opportunities.

Positive Signals

Long-term contract suggests sustained need and potential for stable service delivery.
Awarded to a single entity implies specialized expertise was identified.
Contract duration of over four years indicates a significant project or ongoing requirement.

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 vital for government operations, particularly in defense, infrastructure, and research and development. The market for engineering services is diverse, ranging from specialized design and consulting to large-scale project management. Government spending in this area is substantial, supporting national security, technological advancement, and public works. Benchmarking this $29 million contract requires comparison with similar sole-source or competed engineering support contracts within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have included small business set-aside provisions, nor is there information indicating subcontracting goals for small businesses. The absence of small business participation in a contract of this magnitude is a missed opportunity to foster growth within the small business ecosystem. Federal procurement aims to ensure a fair share of contracts are awarded to small businesses, and this contract's structure did not seem to facilitate that objective.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. As a sole-source award, scrutiny on the justification, performance monitoring, and cost controls would be particularly important. Transparency regarding the specific services rendered and the justification for the sole-source award is crucial for effective oversight. The contract's duration and value necessitate diligent management to ensure compliance with terms and conditions and to prevent potential waste or fraud.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Engineering Services
Army Corps of Engineers Contracts
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition.
Cost-plus contract type may increase final cost.
Lack of transparency on specific services.
No small business participation noted.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.0 million to LONGBOW LLC. TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LONGBOW LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-03-15. End: 2016-03-31.

What specific engineering services did Longbow LLC provide under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'TECHNICAL AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT' under NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services). However, the specific nature of these services is not detailed. This could range from design and analysis to testing, integration, or program management support for various defense systems or infrastructure projects. Without more granular information, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact technical contributions made by Longbow LLC. Further investigation into contract line item numbers (CLINs) or associated task orders would be necessary to understand the precise scope of work.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' implying a sole-source award. Federal regulations permit sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. For a contract valued at nearly $29 million, the justification would need to be robust and formally documented, likely involving a Justification and Approval (J&A) document. This document would detail why competitive procedures were not feasible or would have been detrimental to the government's interests. Without access to this J&A, the rationale remains unclear.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type potentially impact the final cost?

The CPFF contract type reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. While it provides flexibility for work with uncertain scope, it shifts some cost risk to the government. If the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, the government pays the actual costs. The fixed fee, however, remains constant regardless of the final cost. This structure can incentivize contractors to control costs to maximize their fee as a percentage of actual costs, but it also means the government bears the risk of cost overruns. Effective oversight is crucial to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable.

What is the typical spending range for similar engineering services contracts within the Department of Defense?

Spending on engineering services within the Department of Defense can vary significantly based on the scope, duration, and complexity of the requirement. Contracts can range from a few million dollars for specialized support to hundreds of millions or even billions for large-scale system development or infrastructure projects. This $29 million contract for technical and engineering support appears to be a mid-to-large size award for a specific, long-term need. Comparable contracts would likely involve similar engineering disciplines, such as systems engineering, software engineering, or mechanical engineering, supporting major defense programs or platforms.

What are the implications of this contract being awarded in Florida?

The contract's place of performance is listed as Florida (ST: FL, SN: FLORIDA). This suggests that the services provided were likely related to military installations, defense contractors, or research facilities located within the state. Florida has a significant defense industry presence, including naval operations, aerospace, and special forces commands. The contract's execution in Florida implies a localized impact on the regional economy, potentially involving local subcontractors, workforce utilization, and support for state-based defense initiatives. It also indicates the Army had a specific operational or developmental requirement situated in that geographic area.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W58RGZ12R0136

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Lockheed Martin Corp (UEI: 834951691)

Address: 5600 W SAND LAKE RD, ORLANDO, FL, 32819

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,961,149

Exercised Options: $28,961,149

Current Obligation: $28,961,149

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline