Army Experience Center contract awarded to United Solutions and Services LLC for $18.4M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,440,000 ($18.4M)

Contractor: United Solutions and Services LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-03-06

End Date: 2010-08-13

Contract Duration: 890 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: BUILD OUT OF ARMY EXPERIENCE CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: HOCKESSIN, NEW CASTLE County, DELAWARE, 19707

State: Delaware Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.4 million to UNITED SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES LLC for work described as: BUILD OUT OF ARMY EXPERIENCE CENTER Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the scope of engineering services. 2. Limited competition may have impacted overall value for money. 3. Contract duration and firm fixed price suggest manageable cost risk. 4. Performance context is specific to Army facility development. 5. This contract falls within the broader Defense sector's infrastructure spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $18.4 million for engineering services to build out the Army Experience Center appears within a reasonable range for a project of this nature. However, without specific benchmarks for similar facility development projects within the Department of Defense, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is a positive indicator for the government. The absence of detailed cost breakdowns makes it difficult to compare pricing against market rates.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, indicating a lack of competition. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required services, or in specific circumstances where full and open competition is not feasible. The limited competition means that the government did not benefit from a competitive bidding process, which could potentially lead to higher prices than if multiple vendors had vied for the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers may not have received the best possible price for these engineering services, as there was no market pressure to drive down costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Army, which receives the developed Experience Center. Services delivered include engineering and construction-related support for a specialized facility. The geographic impact is localized to the site of the Army Experience Center, likely within Delaware. Workforce implications would involve construction and engineering professionals, though specific numbers are not detailed.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing benefits for taxpayers.
Lack of detailed cost breakdowns hinders precise value-for-money analysis.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Contract awarded by the Department of the Army, a major federal entity.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically related to infrastructure development and specialized facilities for military branches. The engineering services market within the defense sector is substantial, with significant government spending on construction, modernization, and support services. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale facility construction or renovation projects managed by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary consideration for this contract, as it was awarded sole-source and the contractor is not identified as a small business. There is no indication of small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting requirements. This suggests that the contract's value and scope were likely beyond the typical capacity or focus of small businesses in this specialized engineering domain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver the specified services within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award and the lack of publicly available detailed cost information. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Army Facilities Engineering
Department of Defense Construction Projects
Military Base Development

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential overpricing.
Lack of detailed cost information hinders thorough value-for-money assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.4 million to UNITED SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES LLC. BUILD OUT OF ARMY EXPERIENCE CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is UNITED SOLUTIONS AND 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 $18.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-03-06. End: 2010-08-13.

What is the track record of United Solutions and Services LLC with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Information regarding the specific track record of United Solutions and Services LLC with federal contracts, especially with the Department of Defense, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive analysis would require accessing federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) to review past performance, contract history, types of services rendered, and any performance evaluations. Without this external data, it's impossible to assess their experience, reliability, or past success rates in fulfilling government requirements. Understanding their history would be crucial for evaluating the risk associated with this specific contract award.

How does the $18.4 million contract value compare to similar Army facility development projects?

Comparing the $18.4 million contract value for the Army Experience Center to similar projects is challenging without more specific data on comparable projects. Factors such as project scope, size, complexity, location, and the specific engineering services required can vary significantly. Generally, facility development projects for military branches can range from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. To provide a meaningful benchmark, one would need to identify other Army projects involving the construction or significant outfitting of specialized centers or buildings, analyze their contract values, and adjust for inflation and scope differences. The sole-source nature of this award also complicates direct comparison, as competitive bidding often leads to more optimized pricing.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source contract for engineering services?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source contract for engineering services include a lack of price competition, which can lead to inflated costs for the government and taxpayers. There's also a potential for reduced innovation and service quality, as the contractor faces less pressure to excel compared to a competitive environment. Furthermore, sole-source awards can raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the procurement process. Without competitive proposals, it can be more difficult to ensure that the selected contractor is truly the best value option available. Oversight and rigorous performance management become even more critical to mitigate these inherent risks.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in managing costs for this type of project?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in managing costs for projects where the scope of work is well-defined, such as the build-out of an Army Experience Center. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes the primary responsibility for cost overruns, providing a predictable ceiling for the government's expenditure. This shifts the financial risk from the government to the contractor. However, the effectiveness hinges on the accuracy of the initial cost estimation and the clarity of the contract's specifications. If the scope is underestimated or unforeseen issues arise, the contractor might seek change orders, potentially increasing the overall cost, though the base price remains fixed.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services by the Department of the Army in Delaware?

The provided data does not contain information on historical spending patterns for engineering services by the Department of the Army specifically in Delaware. To analyze this, one would need to consult federal procurement databases and filter contracts by agency (Department of the Army), service category (engineering services), and geographic location (Delaware) over a specific period. Such an analysis could reveal trends in contract values, types of services procured, and the prevalence of competitive versus sole-source awards within that region. This context would help determine if this $18.4 million contract is an outlier or consistent with past spending.

What are the implications of the contract duration (890 days) on project delivery and cost control?

A contract duration of 890 days (approximately 2.5 years) for the build-out of the Army Experience Center suggests a project of significant scale and complexity. This extended timeline allows for detailed planning, execution, and potential integration of various engineering and construction phases. From a cost control perspective, a longer duration can sometimes lead to increased overhead costs for the contractor. However, for the government, it provides a more realistic timeframe to manage the project without rushing, potentially reducing errors and rework. The firm fixed-price nature means the total cost is set, but the duration impacts the contractor's resource allocation and potential for efficiency gains or losses over the project lifecycle.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: TRANSPORT, TRAVEL, RELOCATION › TRAVEL, LODGING, RECRUITMENT SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W911N208R0128

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 49 ROBIN COURT, HOCKESSIN, DE, 00

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Emerging Small Business, Federally Funded Research and Development Corp, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,440,000

Exercised Options: $18,440,000

Current Obligation: $18,440,000

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline