DoD's $73.3M engineering services contract with Imperatis Corp. awarded via sole-source justification

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $73,315,648 ($73.3M)

Contractor: Imperatis Corp.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-08-20

End Date: 2016-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,141 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: CONSTANT HAWK

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $73.3 million to IMPERATIS CORP. for work described as: CONSTANT HAWK Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about price discovery and potential for overpayment. 2. Significant duration of over 2100 days suggests a long-term need for these engineering services. 3. Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize cost escalation, requiring robust oversight. 4. The contract's value of $73.3M places it in the mid-to-large tier for engineering services. 5. Lack of competition limits opportunities for other firms and potentially reduces innovation. 6. Performance period spans multiple fiscal years, indicating sustained government reliance on the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $73.3M contract is challenging due to its sole-source nature and the specific engineering services provided. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if the pricing reflects fair market value. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates close monitoring to ensure costs remain reasonable and the fixed fee is appropriate for the scope of work. Comparing it to similar sole-source engineering contracts within the DoD could offer some context, but inherent limitations in data availability persist.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically reserved for situations where only one responsible source can provide the required services. The lack of competition means there were no other bidders, and therefore, no direct price comparison from multiple offers. This limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the best possible price.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not have received the best value due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government could not benefit from the price reductions and innovative solutions that often arise from a competitive procurement process.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from specialized engineering services essential for its operations. This contract supports critical defense infrastructure and potentially program development. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around DoD facilities where these engineering services are rendered. Workforce implications include employment for engineers and technical staff at Imperatis Corp.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher costs.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification process.
Long contract duration without clear performance metrics for cost control.
Absence of small business subcontracting goals due to sole-source nature.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a single entity suggests specialized capabilities meeting a specific need.
Long-term award indicates sustained requirement and potential for stable service delivery.
Engineering services are critical for defense operations, implying a vital function.
Definitive contract structure provides a framework for ongoing service provision.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader professional services market supporting government and industry. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, with significant spending allocated annually. This specific contract's value of $73.3 million is moderate within the context of large-scale defense procurements, but represents a significant investment in specialized technical expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large, sole-source engineering support contracts awarded by agencies like the DoD.

Small Business Impact

As this contract was awarded on a sole-source basis and does not indicate any small business set-aside, it is unlikely to have direct subcontracting implications for small businesses. The absence of competition generally means that opportunities for small business participation through subcontracting are not actively pursued or mandated. This contract does not appear to contribute to the small business ecosystem through set-aside goals or prime contracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates rigorous financial oversight to scrutinize costs and ensure the fixed fee remains justified. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature, but contract modifications and performance reports should be available through official channels. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense Engineering Support Services
Professional Services Contracts
Sole-Source Procurements
Cost-Plus Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may limit competition and potentially increase costs.
Cost-plus contract type can incentivize higher spending.
Long contract duration increases exposure to cost fluctuations and performance risks.
Lack of publicly available details on specific services and performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $73.3 million to IMPERATIS CORP.. CONSTANT HAWK

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IMPERATIS CORP..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $73.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-08-20. End: 2016-06-30.

What specific engineering services does Imperatis Corp. provide under this contract, and how do they align with the DoD's mission requirements?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Engineering Services' (NAICS 541330) awarded to IMPERATIS CORP. by the Department of Defense. While the specific nature of these engineering services is not detailed in the abbreviated data, engineering services within the defense sector typically encompass a wide range of activities. These can include design, development, testing, and evaluation of military systems, infrastructure support, technical analysis, systems integration, and research and development support. Given the 'CONSTANT HAWK' designation, it is plausible these services relate to a specific defense program, platform, or operational requirement. The alignment with DoD mission requirements would depend on the precise nature of the engineering tasks, but they are fundamentally intended to support national defense objectives, enhance military capabilities, or maintain existing defense assets.

How was the sole-source justification for this contract determined to be valid by the Department of Defense?

The validity of a sole-source justification typically rests on specific criteria outlined in federal acquisition regulations (FAR). For this contract, the Department of Defense would have had to demonstrate that only Imperatis Corp. possessed the unique capabilities, proprietary data, or specialized expertise necessary to fulfill the requirement. Common justifications include the existence of patents, copyrights, or specialized knowledge that cannot be replicated by other firms. Alternatively, it could be justified if the requirement arose unexpectedly and only one source was immediately available, or if the services were a continuation of prior work where switching contractors would be prohibitively expensive or disruptive. The contracting officer is responsible for documenting and approving this justification, often requiring review and approval from higher authorities within the agency.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude and duration?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts, like this $73.3 million award to Imperatis Corp., carry inherent risks, particularly for long-duration efforts. The primary risk for the government is cost escalation, as the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred. While a fixed fee provides some predictability, the contractor has less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as their profit is predetermined. This can lead to 'gold plating' or less stringent cost management. For a contract spanning over 2100 days, the risk of cost overruns is amplified due to the extended period during which unforeseen expenses can arise. Robust oversight, detailed cost tracking, and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives value for its investment.

Can the $73.3 million contract value be benchmarked against similar engineering services contracts awarded by the DoD?

Benchmarking the $73.3 million contract value requires access to detailed data on comparable engineering services contracts, which is not fully available in the provided summary. However, within the defense sector, $73.3 million represents a substantial, mid-to-large-sized contract. Engineering services can range from highly specialized R&D support to broad systems engineering and technical assistance. Without knowing the specific services rendered, direct comparison is difficult. Generally, sole-source contracts may not reflect market rates as accurately as competitively awarded ones. To perform a robust benchmark, one would need to identify other sole-source or competitively awarded contracts for similar engineering disciplines (e.g., aerospace, C4ISR, naval engineering) awarded around the same period, considering factors like contract type, duration, and the specific agency or program office.

What oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure contractor performance and prevent potential waste, fraud, or abuse on this sole-source contract?

Oversight for this contract is primarily managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for monitoring contractor performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and verifying costs. Given the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, DCMA's financial auditors play a critical role in scrutinizing incurred costs to ensure they are allowable, allocable, and reasonable. For sole-source contracts, particularly those with significant value, the contracting officer's representative (COR) is essential in overseeing day-to-day performance and ensuring the contractor meets technical requirements. While the specific oversight plan isn't detailed, standard procedures would include regular progress reports, site visits, and performance reviews. The Inspector General (IG) for the Department of Defense also has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of waste, fraud, or abuse related to this contract.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2231 CRYSTAL DR STE 401, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $73,403,475

Exercised Options: $73,403,475

Current Obligation: $73,315,648

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline