DoD's $13.9M IT contract to DefenseWeb Technologies shows long-term IT infrastructure support needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,934,072 ($13.9M)

Contractor: Defenseweb Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-28

End Date: 2011-09-28

Contract Duration: 1,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Official Description: BASE YEAR TAS::21 2020::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92109, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.9 million to DEFENSEWEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: BASE YEAR TAS::21 2020::TAS Key points: 1. Contract awarded in 2006 highlights enduring need for computing infrastructure and data processing services. 2. Long contract duration suggests stable, ongoing requirements for IT support. 3. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad market search. 4. Contract type (Time and Materials) may allow for cost flexibility but requires careful monitoring. 5. The specific NAICS code (518210) points to a mature IT service sector. 6. Geographic location in California may reflect a concentration of IT talent and services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its age and the specific nature of IT services provided. Time and Materials contracts can be efficient for evolving needs but carry a risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently. Without more granular data on the services delivered and market rates at the time, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the contract's longevity suggests it met the agency's needs over an extended period.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that the Department of the Army sought bids from all responsible sources. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service innovation. The fact that it was competed broadly implies that multiple vendors were capable of meeting the requirements, contributing to price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government explores the widest possible market, potentially securing more competitive pricing and better terms.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from reliable computing infrastructure and data processing services. Ensures the continuity of critical IT operations for Army functions. Supports the technological backbone necessary for military operations and administrative tasks. Indirectly impacts the cybersecurity posture by providing essential hosting and processing capabilities. Workforce implications are primarily within the IT support and maintenance roles at the agency.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type can lead to unpredictable costs if not closely monitored.
The age of the contract data makes direct comparison to current market rates difficult.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it hard to assess the quality of services received over time.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
Long duration suggests sustained satisfaction with the contractor's performance.
Contract served a critical IT infrastructure need for a major government agency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology sector, specifically focusing on computing infrastructure, data processing, and web hosting. The market for these services is vast and highly competitive, with numerous providers ranging from large corporations to specialized firms. The NAICS code 518210 represents a segment of the IT services industry that is crucial for government operations, providing the foundational elements for digital services and data management. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other government contracts for similar IT infrastructure and hosting services.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside (ss: false, sb: false). As a full and open competition, it did not specifically target small businesses for award. However, the prime contractor, DefenseWeb Technologies, Inc., may have utilized small businesses as subcontractors, which is a common practice in larger IT contracts to leverage specialized capabilities and meet subcontracting goals. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether subcontracting opportunities were made available and utilized.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Army, likely through contracting officers and technical monitors. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to deliverables. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which record award details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Cloud Computing Services
Data Center Operations
IT Managed Services
Web Hosting Services
Information Technology Support Services

Risk Flags

Contract awarded under Time and Materials
Contract duration exceeds 5 years
Data pertains to IT infrastructure services

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.9 million to DEFENSEWEB TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. BASE YEAR TAS::21 2020::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DEFENSEWEB TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $13.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-28. End: 2011-09-28.

What was the specific nature of the computing infrastructure and data processing services provided under this contract?

The contract, awarded under NAICS code 518210 (Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services), likely encompassed a range of IT services essential for the Department of the Army's operations. This could include the provision and management of servers, data storage solutions, network infrastructure, and the hosting of various applications and databases. Web hosting services would ensure the availability of online platforms and portals. Given the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type, the scope may have been flexible, adapting to evolving technological needs and specific project requirements as they arose during the contract period (2006-2011).

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type compare to other contract types for similar IT services, and what are the implications for cost control?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not clearly defined or is expected to change significantly. They reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours at specified hourly rates and for the actual cost of materials. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, T&M offers greater flexibility but less cost certainty for the government. For IT services, T&M can be beneficial for projects involving research, development, or evolving technical requirements. However, effective cost control requires rigorous oversight, detailed tracking of labor hours and materials, and clear definitions of what constitutes 'materials.' Without strong management, T&M contracts can lead to cost overruns, making them less desirable than FFP for well-defined requirements.

What was the competitive landscape for computing infrastructure and data processing services around 2006 when this contract was awarded?

In 2006, the market for computing infrastructure, data processing, and web hosting services was already robust and rapidly evolving. The rise of commercial data centers and early cloud computing concepts meant that numerous providers, from large telecommunications and IT firms to specialized hosting companies, were competing for government contracts. The Department of the Army's decision to use full and open competition suggests that the agency believed a wide range of vendors could meet its needs. This period saw increasing demand for secure and scalable IT solutions within the federal government, driving competition among established players and emerging technology companies.

Given the contract's duration (2006-2011), what potential technological shifts might have impacted its execution or relevance?

The period between 2006 and 2011 was marked by significant technological advancements, particularly in IT infrastructure. Key shifts included the maturation of virtualization technologies, the early stages of cloud computing adoption (e.g., AWS launched in 2006), increased focus on energy efficiency in data centers, and the growing importance of cybersecurity. For a T&M contract, these shifts could mean that the scope of work and the types of services required evolved considerably over its five-year term. The contractor would need to adapt to new technologies and potentially different service delivery models to meet the Army's changing requirements, while the agency would need to ensure the contract remained aligned with its strategic IT goals.

What does the contract's award to DefenseWeb Technologies, Inc. suggest about their capabilities in the federal IT services market at that time?

An award of this nature, particularly under full and open competition, indicates that DefenseWeb Technologies, Inc. was recognized as a capable provider of computing infrastructure, data processing, and web hosting services by the Department of the Army in 2006. Winning a multi-year contract with a major agency like the DoD suggests the company possessed the necessary technical expertise, financial stability, and security clearances to meet stringent government requirements. It implies they were competitive in terms of both technical solution and pricing against other potential bidders in the federal IT services market during that period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services › Computing Infrastructure Providers, Data Processing, Web Hosting, and Related Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Humana Inc. (UEI: 049944143)

Address: 4150 MISSION BLVD STE 220, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92109

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,089,385

Exercised Options: $17,110,947

Current Obligation: $13,934,072

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F0587J

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline