DoD's $57M Engineering Services Contract Awarded to Science Applications International Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $57,135,666 ($57.1M)

Contractor: Science Applications International Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-05-22

End Date: 2024-01-31

Contract Duration: 2,080 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, CHATTAHOOCHEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $57.1 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost overruns if not managed carefully. 3. The duration of the contract is substantial at 2080 days, indicating a long-term need for these services. 4. The award amount of over $57 million signifies a significant investment in engineering services. 5. The contract was awarded as a Delivery Order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. 6. The presence of 3 bidders indicates a moderate level of competition for this specific award.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $57 million contract is challenging without specific deliverables or comparable contracts. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure carries inherent risks of cost escalation, as the contractor is reimbursed for actual costs plus a fixed fee. While this structure can be appropriate for research and development or when costs are uncertain, it requires robust oversight to ensure value for money. Without detailed performance metrics or comparisons to similar engineering service contracts, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is competitive or if the government is receiving optimal value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The fact that there were 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific delivery order. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing price discovery and ensuring fair market value, the number of bidders can vary based on the complexity and specialized nature of the services required.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process like this generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and encouraging efficiency from contractors vying for the award.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from specialized engineering services to support its operations and infrastructure. This contract likely supports various engineering projects, potentially including design, analysis, and technical support. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around Army installations or project sites within Georgia, where the contract is managed. The contract may have implications for the engineering workforce, both within the contractor's organization and potentially through subcontracting opportunities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Limited transparency on specific deliverables makes it hard to assess true value for money.
The duration of the contract may indicate a lack of agile procurement or long-term planning.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, maximizing potential for competitive pricing.
The contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, is a large and established entity with significant federal contracting experience.
The contract is managed within Georgia, potentially benefiting the local economy through employment and subcontracting.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services, categorized under NAICS code 541330, represent a significant segment of federal spending, particularly within the defense sector. This contract for the Department of the Army falls within a market characterized by specialized technical expertise and often long-term project lifecycles. Comparable spending benchmarks for engineering services can vary widely based on the specific discipline (e.g., civil, mechanical, electrical) and the scale of the project. The defense industry relies heavily on such services for infrastructure development, weapon system design, and operational support.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large contract awarded to a major defense contractor, it is unlikely that small businesses would be the primary recipients of the prime contract funds. However, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors, depending on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan and the specific needs of the engineering projects undertaken.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates rigorous financial oversight to ensure that costs are reasonable and allocable, and that the fixed fee is justified. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting requirements and performance reviews. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Engineering Services
Army Corps of Engineers Contracts
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Contracts
Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost escalation.
Long contract duration may limit flexibility and incentivize less innovation.
Limited number of bidders (3) for a large contract could indicate potential market concentration or high barriers to entry.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $57.1 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $57.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-05-22. End: 2024-01-31.

What is the track record of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in performing similar engineering services for the Department of Defense?

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is a major federal contractor with a substantial history of providing engineering and technical services to the Department of Defense (DoD) and other government agencies. Their track record includes support for a wide range of defense programs, encompassing areas such as systems engineering, cybersecurity, logistics, and research and development. SAIC has been involved in numerous large-scale contracts, often competing successfully for complex requirements. Performance on past contracts, as reflected in government databases like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), would provide a more granular view of their success rates, quality of work, and adherence to schedule and budget on similar projects. Generally, their size and experience suggest a capacity to handle significant engineering endeavors, though specific performance on individual contracts can vary.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other contract types for engineering services, and what are the implications for value?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is characterized by the government reimbursing the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not well-defined, or for research and development efforts where costs are inherently uncertain. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers less price certainty for the government and can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs, as their fee is fixed regardless of the total cost. However, it can be advantageous when flexibility is needed. For value, CPFF requires stringent government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and necessary. If managed effectively, it can facilitate complex projects. If poorly managed, it can lead to cost overruns and reduced value for the taxpayer compared to FFP contracts where the contractor bears more cost risk.

What are the potential risks associated with a 2080-day contract duration for engineering services?

A contract duration of 2080 days (approximately 5.7 years) for engineering services presents several potential risks. Firstly, it increases the risk of scope creep or requirements evolving significantly over the contract's life, potentially leading to cost increases or the need for contract modifications. Secondly, long-duration contracts can sometimes reduce the incentive for contractors to innovate or find efficiencies, as they may be locked into a specific approach for an extended period. Thirdly, it can tie the government's hands, making it harder to pivot to new technologies or different service providers if market conditions or agency needs change. Finally, maintaining consistent oversight and performance management over such a long period requires sustained effort and resources from the government contracting team.

Given the $57 million award value, what is a reasonable benchmark for the number of bidders in a full and open competition for engineering services?

The 'reasonable' number of bidders for a $57 million full and open competition for engineering services can vary significantly based on the specific technical requirements, the availability of qualified contractors, and the perceived profitability or strategic importance of the contract. For highly specialized or niche engineering services, three bidders might represent a healthy level of competition. However, for more common or broadly applicable engineering support, one might expect a larger pool of interested parties. Factors such as the geographic location of work, security clearance requirements, and the complexity of the Statement of Work (SOW) can also influence the number of bids received. Generally, more bidders tend to foster greater price competition, but the quality and capability of the bidders are paramount.

What does the 'Delivery Order' (AW) designation imply about this contract within the broader federal procurement landscape?

The 'Delivery Order' (AW) designation indicates that this contract is likely a task order issued under a larger, pre-existing Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. IDIQ contracts establish terms and conditions, including pricing structures and performance standards, under which multiple task or delivery orders can be placed over a specified period. This approach allows agencies to procure a range of services or supplies efficiently without needing to conduct a full, separate competition for each individual requirement. For taxpayers, this can mean faster procurement cycles and potentially better pricing due to pre-negotiated terms. However, it also means that the competition for the specific delivery order might be limited to pre-qualified vendors under the parent IDIQ, and the overall spending under the IDIQ needs careful monitoring.

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: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12010, SUNSET HILLS ROAD, RESTON, VA, 20190

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $57,135,666

Exercised Options: $57,135,666

Current Obligation: $57,135,666

Actual Outlays: $38,526

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 33

Total Subaward Amount: $20,167,580

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADU130

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline