Army awards $25M non-personal services contract for operational test support to Combined Technical Services, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,056,484 ($25.1M)

Contractor: Combined Technical Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-03-25

End Date: 2017-09-22

Contract Duration: 1,277 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THIS IS A NON-PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO PROVIDE DATA MANAGEMENT, DATA COLLECTION, INSTRUMENTATION, AND LOGISTICS SUPPORT TO OPERATIONAL TESTS EVENTS CONDUCTED BY THE U. S. ARMY OPERATIONAL TEST COMMAND (USAOTC). AS SUCH, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER THE CONTRACT SERVICE PROVIDED, PERFORMING SERVICES HEREIN. ALL PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN PERFORMING THE SERVICES UNDER THIS CONTRACT (DIRECT LABOR, SUBCONTRACTED LABOR, MATERIAL SUPPLIERS, ETC.) SHALL BE ACCOUNTABLE SOLELY TO THE CONTRACTOR WHO, IN TURN IS RESPONSIBLE TO THE GOVERNMENT.

Place of Performance

Location: FORT HOOD, BELL County, TEXAS, 76544

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.1 million to COMBINED TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC for work described as: THIS IS A NON-PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO PROVIDE DATA MANAGEMENT, DATA COLLECTION, INSTRUMENTATION, AND LOGISTICS SUPPORT TO OPERATIONAL TESTS EVENTS CONDUCTED BY THE U. S. ARMY OPERATIONAL TEST COMMAND (USAOTC). AS SUCH, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISION OR CO… Key points: 1. Contract provides data management, collection, instrumentation, and logistics for Army operational tests. 2. Non-personal services nature means the government exercises no direct supervision over contractor personnel. 3. Contract awarded as a definitive contract with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee pricing structure. 4. Contract duration spanned over three years, from March 2014 to September 2017. 5. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential price discovery and value. 6. Awarded to Combined Technical Services, LLC, with performance located in Texas.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of competitive data. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure can incentivize cost overruns if not managed carefully. Without a competitive baseline, it's difficult to assess if the final price of approximately $25 million represents a fair market value for the data management, collection, instrumentation, and logistics support provided to the U.S. Army Operational Test Command.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. The absence of a competitive bidding process means there was no opportunity for multiple vendors to offer proposals, which typically drives down prices and fosters innovation. This approach limits the government's ability to ensure it is receiving the best possible value and may result in higher costs than if the contract had been open to competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for these services due to the lack of competition. Without a bidding process, there's less pressure on the contractor to offer the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army Operational Test Command, which receives essential support for its operational test events. Services delivered include data management, data collection, instrumentation, and logistics support. Geographic impact is primarily within Texas, where the contractor is located and services were likely performed. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for personnel working for Combined Technical Services, LLC and its potential subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition for a significant contract value raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer dollars.
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while offering flexibility, can lead to cost increases if not rigorously managed and monitored.
Absence of detailed performance metrics or outcomes makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the services provided.

Positive Signals

The contract successfully provided critical support services to the Army Operational Test Command, enabling the execution of operational test events.
Combined Technical Services, LLC, as the awardee, likely possesses specialized expertise in data management and logistics for testing environments.
The definitive contract structure provides a clear framework for the services to be rendered over the specified period.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS code 541330), which encompasses firms providing engineering consulting and services. The market for such services supporting defense testing and evaluation is substantial, with significant government spending allocated annually. This contract represents a portion of the broader defense support services market, where specialized firms are contracted to provide technical and logistical assistance for complex military operations and evaluations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears limited, and there is no clear indication of opportunities created for small businesses through this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the U.S. Army Operational Test Command and the contracting officer. As a non-personal services contract, the government's oversight focuses on the deliverables and outcomes rather than the contractor's internal management of personnel. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of publicly available detailed performance reports. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Army Test and Evaluation Command Support Contracts
Defense Operational Support Services
Data Management and Analysis Services for Government
Logistics Support for Military Exercises

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus contract type
Lack of public performance data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.1 million to COMBINED TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC. THIS IS A NON-PERSONAL SERVICES CONTRACT TO PROVIDE DATA MANAGEMENT, DATA COLLECTION, INSTRUMENTATION, AND LOGISTICS SUPPORT TO OPERATIONAL TESTS EVENTS CONDUCTED BY THE U. S. ARMY OPERATIONAL TEST COMMAND (USAOTC). AS SUCH, THE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT EXERCISE ANY SUPERVISION OR CONTROL OVER THE CONTRACT SERVICE PROVIDED, PERFORMING SERVICES HEREIN. ALL PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN PERFORMING THE SERVICES UNDER THIS CONTRACT (DIRECT LABOR, SUBCONTRACTED LABOR, MATERIAL SUPPLIERS, ETC.) SHALL BE ACCOUNTAB

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COMBINED TECHNICAL SERVICES, 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 $25.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-03-25. End: 2017-09-22.

What is the track record of Combined Technical Services, LLC in performing similar government contracts?

Information regarding the specific track record of Combined Technical Services, LLC in performing similar government contracts is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract histories, and any reported issues or successes on previous awards. Without this, it's difficult to definitively gauge their experience and reliability in delivering data management, data collection, instrumentation, and logistics support for operational test events. Further research into federal procurement databases and past performance reviews would be necessary to establish a detailed understanding of their capabilities and history.

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

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or when there's a high degree of uncertainty, allowing for flexibility. However, it can lead to higher costs for the government compared to fixed-price contracts if costs escalate significantly. For services like data management and logistics support, fixed-price contracts might offer better cost certainty if the requirements are well-defined. CPFF contracts require robust government oversight to manage costs effectively and prevent overruns. Benchmarking against similar contracts would reveal if CPFF was the most appropriate or cost-effective choice in this instance.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for operational test support services?

The primary risk of a sole-source award is the potential for inflated pricing due to the lack of competition. Without competing bids, the government loses the opportunity to leverage market forces to secure the best possible price and value. This can lead to taxpayers bearing higher costs than necessary. Additionally, sole-source awards may limit access to innovative solutions or specialized expertise that other vendors might offer. It can also create a perception of favoritism or a lack of due diligence in procurement processes, potentially undermining public trust in government spending.

Can the effectiveness of the services provided be assessed without detailed performance metrics?

Assessing the effectiveness of services without detailed performance metrics is challenging and relies heavily on qualitative assessments and the overall success of the operational test events themselves. While the contract data states the purpose was to provide support, it doesn't offer quantifiable measures of success (e.g., data accuracy rates, timeliness of logistics, efficiency gains). Without specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) being publicly available, it's difficult to objectively determine if the contractor met or exceeded expectations in terms of quality, efficiency, and overall contribution to the Army's testing objectives. This lack of measurable outcomes limits a thorough evaluation of program effectiveness.

What is the historical spending trend for similar operational test support services by the Department of the Army?

The provided data focuses on a single contract and does not offer historical spending trends for similar operational test support services by the Department of the Army. To analyze historical spending, one would need to examine procurement data over multiple fiscal years, identifying contracts with similar scopes of work (data management, logistics, instrumentation for testing) and awarding agencies within the Army. This would involve looking at contract values, durations, and the number of competitors for such services to understand if spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable, and whether competition levels have varied over time.

What oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure the non-personal services nature of the contract was maintained?

Ensuring the non-personal services nature of a contract requires diligent oversight to prevent the government from exercising day-to-day supervision or control over the contractor's employees. For this contract, oversight would likely involve the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) monitoring the contractor's performance against the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and ensuring that the contractor manages its own personnel. This includes verifying that contractor employees are not integrated into government organizational structures, do not use government equipment for direct supervision, and that the contractor retains full responsibility for the services rendered. Regular progress meetings and deliverable reviews would be key oversight activities.

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

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Trax International Corporation

Address: 2500 LOUISIANA BLVD NE STE 325, ALBUQUERQUE, NM, 87110

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,894,837

Exercised Options: $26,894,837

Current Obligation: $25,056,484

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline