DoD's $33.4M Engineering Services Contract Awarded to Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,381,297 ($33.4M)

Contractor: Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-09-15

End Date: 2022-06-10

Contract Duration: 2,094 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: FORT EUSTIS, NEWPORT NEWS CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23604

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $33.4 million to ADVANCED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES GROUP, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract value of $33.4 million over approximately 5.8 years indicates a significant investment in engineering services. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type generally transfers risk to the contractor, potentially benefiting the government. 4. The contract's duration and value place it within a substantial spending category for engineering services. 5. The award to a single entity, Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc., warrants examination of its capacity and past performance. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor is not a small business, and subcontracting opportunities should be reviewed.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $33.4 million over nearly six years averages to approximately $5.7 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale engineering services contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests that the government has negotiated a set price, which can be advantageous if the contractor's costs are well-managed. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry benchmarks for specific engineering disciplines, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult, but the competitive award process provides some assurance.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 6 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for this engineering services requirement. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of innovative solutions. The fact that it was competed openly is a positive sign for price discovery and ensuring the government receives fair market value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces and encouraging a broader pool of qualified contractors to bid, potentially leading to cost savings.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Army, which receives essential engineering services to support its operations and infrastructure. The services delivered likely encompass a range of engineering disciplines critical for military readiness and base support. The geographic impact is likely concentrated where the Army operates, potentially across various domestic and international installations. The contract supports a workforce of engineers and technical specialists, contributing to employment in the engineering sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on the engineering services provided makes it difficult to assess the true value and potential for cost overruns.
The long contract duration (nearly 6 years) could lead to scope creep or outdated service delivery if not actively managed.
Without clear performance metrics, it's challenging to gauge the contractor's effectiveness and ensure optimal outcomes for the Army.
The absence of small business participation noted in the data requires further investigation into subcontracting plans to ensure broader economic impact.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process that should yield fair pricing.
The firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, which is generally favorable for the government.
The contract was awarded to Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc., a single entity, suggesting a focused and potentially streamlined delivery.
The contract duration, while long, allows for sustained support and potentially deeper integration of services.

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 characterized by specialized expertise and often involves complex projects for government and private clients. The market size for engineering services is substantial, driven by infrastructure development, defense needs, and technological advancements. This specific contract, valued at over $33 million, represents a significant procurement within this domain, likely supporting major defense initiatives or base operations.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. While this doesn't preclude subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, it means that the initial competition was not specifically designed to foster small business participation. Further analysis would be needed to determine if the prime contractor has robust subcontracting plans that include small businesses, which is crucial for ensuring broad economic benefits and supporting the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified services at an agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data being publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply if allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Defense Engineering Services
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Army Logistics and Support Contracts
Government Engineering Consulting
Federal IT and Engineering Support

Risk Flags

Contract duration is long, potentially leading to scope creep or outdated services if not actively managed.
Lack of specific service details hinders a precise value-for-money assessment.
No explicit mention of small business subcontracting plans requires further investigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $33.4 million to ADVANCED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES GROUP, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ADVANCED MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES GROUP, 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 $33.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-09-15. End: 2022-06-10.

What specific engineering services does Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. provide under this contract, and how do they align with the Army's mission requirements?

The provided data identifies the contract under NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services) and the description 'Engineering Services'. However, it lacks specific details on the precise nature of these services. Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. (AMSG) likely provides a range of engineering support critical to the Department of the Army's operations. This could include areas such as civil engineering, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, systems engineering, or specialized technical consulting related to military equipment, infrastructure, or operational planning. To fully understand the alignment with mission requirements, a review of the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) would be necessary. This document would detail the specific tasks, deliverables, and performance standards expected from AMSG, ensuring they directly support the Army's strategic objectives, readiness, and modernization efforts.

How does the awarded price of $33.4 million compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

The total contract value of $33.4 million over approximately 5.8 years (2094 days) equates to an average annual value of roughly $5.7 million. Benchmarking this figure requires comparing it to contracts for similar scope, duration, and complexity within the engineering services domain. For instance, contracts for large-scale infrastructure design, specialized military systems engineering, or comprehensive technical consulting could fall within a similar range. However, without knowing the specific engineering disciplines, the level of effort, and the geographic scope of services required by this particular Army contract, a precise comparison is difficult. Generally, firm fixed-price contracts awarded through full and open competition tend to reflect competitive market rates. A deeper analysis would involve querying contract databases for comparable awards, considering factors like the number of bidders, contractor past performance, and the specific services rendered.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate the performance of Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. on this contract?

The provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc.'s performance. However, for a firm fixed-price contract of this nature, performance evaluation typically focuses on adherence to the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), timely delivery of specified engineering services and deliverables, quality of work, and compliance with any contractual requirements. The Department of the Army's contracting officer and program managers are responsible for monitoring these aspects. Performance assessments might include metrics related to project milestones, technical accuracy, responsiveness to requests, and overall customer satisfaction. Formal performance reviews are usually conducted periodically throughout the contract's life, and feedback is often documented in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services by the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit into that trend?

The Department of the Army, as a major component of the Department of Defense, consistently spends significant amounts on engineering services to maintain its infrastructure, support its global operations, and develop new capabilities. Historical spending patterns reveal a substantial and ongoing demand for these services, encompassing everything from base construction and maintenance to complex systems engineering for advanced weaponry and communication networks. This $33.4 million contract for engineering services fits within this established trend of substantial investment. It represents one of many procurements aimed at ensuring the Army has the necessary technical expertise and support to fulfill its diverse mission requirements. Analyzing broader historical spending data would reveal fluctuations based on defense budgets, geopolitical events, and specific modernization initiatives undertaken by the Army.

Are there any known risks associated with Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. as a contractor, based on past performance or other federal contracts?

The provided data does not contain information regarding the past performance or risk profile of Advanced Management Strategies Group, Inc. (AMSG). To assess potential risks, a review of AMSG's contract history with the federal government would be necessary. This would involve examining data from sources like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), which documents past performance evaluations on federal contracts. Factors to consider would include any history of contract terminations, significant performance deficiencies, cost overruns on previous fixed-price contracts, or unresolved disputes. Without access to this specific performance data, it is impossible to identify any known risks directly associated with AMSG. The current contract's firm fixed-price nature and competitive award do, however, mitigate some risks by transferring cost uncertainty to the contractor.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Advanced Management Strategies Group Inc.

Address: 3800 FETTLER PARK DR STE 201, DUMFRIES, VA, 22025

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,485,876

Exercised Options: $33,485,876

Current Obligation: $33,381,297

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $52,735,197

Contract Characteristics

Consolidated Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00F024CA

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline