DoD's $13.5M contract for C2CNT East design awarded to Ewing Cole Inc. in 2008

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,468,890 ($13.5M)

Contractor: Ewing Cole Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-03-20

End Date: 2012-07-30

Contract Duration: 1,593 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 15

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: DESIGN OF C2CNT EAST

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20036

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.5 million to EWING COLE INC. for work described as: DESIGN OF C2CNT EAST Key points: 1. The contract value of $13.5 million for engineering services appears reasonable for a multi-year design project. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 1593 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor. 5. The project was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to engineering services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $13.5 million for the design of C2CNT East is within a typical range for large-scale engineering projects of this nature. Without specific benchmarks for similar Command and Control Center designs, a direct per-unit cost comparison is difficult. However, the firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the initial pricing was deemed acceptable and that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is a positive indicator for value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This suggests a robust bidding environment, likely leading to competitive pricing. The presence of 15 bids (no=15) further supports the notion of significant competition, which generally benefits the government by driving down costs and improving the quality of proposals.

Taxpayer Impact: The extensive competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers as it likely resulted in a more cost-effective solution and ensured that the government received proposals from a wide range of qualified engineering firms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army, who will receive the design for the C2CNT East facility. The service delivered is engineering design, crucial for the development of critical infrastructure. The geographic impact is centered in the District of Columbia (st=DC, sn=DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA). The contract supports the defense sector's infrastructure development and potentially related engineering and construction workforces.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if design requirements are not rigidly managed.
Long contract duration could lead to potential obsolescence of design elements if technology advances rapidly.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract mitigates cost overrun risk for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive market and potentially better pricing.
Awarded to a single entity (Ewing Cole Inc.) implies specialized expertise for this complex design.

Sector Analysis

The engineering services sector (NAICS 541330) is a critical component of the defense industry, providing essential design and planning for military facilities and infrastructure. The market size for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by ongoing modernization and maintenance needs. This contract for the C2CNT East design fits within the broader category of defense infrastructure development, where specialized architectural and engineering firms compete for significant projects.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business set-asides were not utilized (ss=false, sb=false). This suggests that the primary competition was likely among larger, established engineering firms capable of handling complex, large-scale design projects. There may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors to the prime contractor, Ewing Cole Inc., depending on the subcontracting plan.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and project management offices. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by fixing the total cost. Transparency would be maintained through contract reporting mechanisms and potentially through public contract databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Engineering
Command and Control Center Design
Army Corps of Engineers Projects
Defense Infrastructure Modernization

Risk Flags

Long contract duration increases risk of design obsolescence.
Potential for scope creep in complex design projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.5 million to EWING COLE INC.. DESIGN OF C2CNT EAST

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EWING COLE 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 $13.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-03-20. End: 2012-07-30.

What is the track record of Ewing Cole Inc. in handling similar large-scale defense design contracts?

Ewing Cole Inc. is a well-established architecture, engineering, and planning firm with a significant portfolio in various sectors, including defense. Their experience often includes complex facilities design, such as command centers, laboratories, and healthcare facilities. While specific details on past defense contracts of identical scope and value require deeper investigation into their project history and past performance reviews, their general reputation suggests they possess the capabilities for such projects. A review of their contract history with the government, including any past performance evaluations or awards, would provide a more definitive assessment of their track record for this specific type of work.

How does the awarded value of $13.5 million compare to industry benchmarks for similar design projects?

Benchmarking the $13.5 million award for the C2CNT East design requires detailed comparison with similar projects in terms of scope, complexity, facility type, and geographic location. Engineering service costs can vary significantly based on these factors. Without access to proprietary cost data or specific industry reports on command and control center designs, a precise comparison is challenging. However, for a multi-year, complex design project for a government entity, this value appears within a reasonable range. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the initial cost estimate was considered appropriate by both parties at the time of award.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for a design project of this duration?

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract for a long-duration design project like C2CNT East lies in potential scope creep and unforeseen design challenges. While FFP shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, significant changes to the design requirements after the contract is awarded can lead to disputes, change orders, or contractor claims, potentially impacting the overall project timeline and final cost, even if the base contract price is fixed. Another risk is that the contractor might cut corners on quality to maintain profitability if unforeseen issues arise, although quality assurance measures should mitigate this. The long duration also increases the risk of design obsolescence if technology or operational requirements evolve significantly during the project lifecycle.

How effective was the 'full and open competition' in ensuring the best value for this engineering design contract?

The 'full and open competition' strategy, evidenced by 15 bids received, is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring best value in government contracting. This approach maximizes the pool of potential bidders, fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. The high number of bids suggests that the solicitation was well-defined and attractive to a wide range of qualified firms. This competitive pressure likely led to the government receiving proposals that offered a strong balance of technical merit and cost-effectiveness, thereby maximizing the value obtained for the $13.5 million investment in engineering design services.

What is the historical spending trend for engineering services by the Department of the Army in the District of Columbia?

Analyzing historical spending trends for engineering services by the Department of the Army specifically within the District of Columbia requires access to detailed federal procurement databases. Such data would reveal the volume and value of contracts awarded for engineering services in that geographic area over time. This specific contract for C2CNT East design represents a significant investment in the DC area. Understanding broader spending patterns would help contextualize this award, indicating whether it aligns with or deviates from typical Army procurement activities in the region for similar types of infrastructure projects.

What are the potential implications of the 1593-day contract duration on project delivery and contractor performance?

A contract duration of 1593 days (approximately 4.36 years) for a design project indicates a substantial and complex undertaking. This extended timeline allows for thorough design development, review, and potential revisions. For the contractor, it provides a stable revenue stream over a long period but also requires sustained resource allocation and project management. For the government, it necessitates ongoing oversight and stakeholder engagement to ensure the design remains aligned with evolving needs. The extended duration increases the risk of design obsolescence or the need for significant updates if requirements change substantially during the project's lifecycle, potentially impacting the long-term utility of the design.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Offers Received: 15

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 100 N 6TH ST FL 6, PHILADELPHIA, PA, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,468,890

Exercised Options: $13,468,890

Current Obligation: $13,468,890

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline