Army awards $189M for engineering services, with a significant portion for R&D

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,990,187 ($18.0M)

Contractor: CGI Federal Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-05-31

End Date: 2010-05-30

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: 200508!003403!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0030 !A!N! !Y!0001 ! !20050531!20051231!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811-A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000000025335!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541710!E! !7! ! ! ! ! !20200930!C! ! !N!Z!A!N!J!2!002! ! !Z!N!Z! ! !Y!A!Y!N!Z! ! ! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.0 million to CGI FEDERAL INC. for work described as: 200508!003403!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0030 !A!N! !Y!0001 ! !20050531!20051231!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811-A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADI… Key points: 1. Contract focuses on specialized engineering and technical services, indicating a need for advanced expertise. 2. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for these services. 3. A substantial portion of the contract value is allocated to research and development, highlighting innovation efforts. 4. The contract duration spans five years, implying a long-term requirement for the services provided. 5. The primary place of performance is Huntsville, Alabama, a known hub for defense and aerospace activities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $189,071,368 over five years appears reasonable for specialized engineering and technical services, particularly those involving research and development. Benchmarking against similar contracts for R&D and engineering support within the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. However, the firm-fixed-price nature suggests that the government has a clear understanding of the scope and cost.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple capable vendors were allowed to bid. The presence of three bidders suggests a competitive environment, which typically leads to better pricing and innovation for the government. The specific details of the bidding process and the number of proposals received would offer further insight into the intensity of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive marketplace that drives down costs and encourages higher quality service delivery.

Public Impact

The U.S. Army benefits from advanced engineering and technical services crucial for its operations and technological development. Services delivered likely include research, design, testing, and analysis to support various Army programs. The geographic impact is concentrated in Huntsville, Alabama, supporting the local economy and its specialized workforce. Workforce implications include the creation or sustainment of high-skilled jobs in engineering, research, and technical fields.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if R&D efforts prove more complex or time-consuming than initially estimated.
Risk of contractor performance issues if specialized expertise is not consistently maintained throughout the contract duration.
Dependency on a single contractor for critical engineering and R&D functions could pose a risk if the contractor faces financial or operational difficulties.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract structure helps mitigate cost uncertainty for the government.
Awarding under full and open competition suggests a healthy market and potential for high-quality service providers.
The long contract duration indicates a stable, ongoing need, allowing for deeper integration and expertise development.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541710 for Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. This sector is characterized by innovation, specialized expertise, and often long development cycles. The U.S. government is a significant investor in R&D, particularly within defense and aerospace, making this contract a typical example of federal spending in this area. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large R&D contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for similar scientific and engineering services.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a specific small business set-aside. The award was made under full and open competition, and the prime contractor, MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION, is not explicitly identified as a small business in the provided data. There is no information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities exist and how they might impact the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the U.S. Army Contracting Command, with program management oversight from the relevant Army technical and program executive offices. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services and research outcomes. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which record award details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Army Research and Development Programs
Missile Systems Development
Aviation Technology Research
Engineering Support Services Contracts
Department of Defense R&D Spending

Risk Flags

Potential for R&D cost overruns
Contractor performance risk
Technological obsolescence in R&D
Dependency on contractor expertise

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.0 million to CGI FEDERAL INC.. 200508!003403!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0030 !A!N! !Y!0001 ! !20050531!20051231!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811-A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000000025335!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541710!E! !7! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CGI FEDERAL 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 $18.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-05-31. End: 2010-05-30.

What is the track record of MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION in performing similar engineering and R&D contracts for the Department of Defense?

A review of past performance data for MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION would be necessary to assess their track record. This would involve examining previous contracts, their values, durations, and any performance evaluations or awards received. Specifically, looking for experience in missile and aviation systems development, as well as general engineering and technical services, would be crucial. A history of successful contract completion, adherence to schedules, and meeting technical requirements would indicate a strong track record. Conversely, any documented performance issues, disputes, or contract terminations would raise concerns about their capability to execute this current award effectively. Without specific past performance data, it is difficult to definitively assess their reliability for this significant contract.

How does the awarded value of $189 million compare to other large R&D contracts for engineering services within the Army or DoD?

The awarded value of approximately $189 million for a five-year contract for engineering and R&D services is substantial, placing it among significant federal procurements. To benchmark this value, one would compare it to similar contracts awarded by the Department of Defense (DoD) or other federal agencies for Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710) or Engineering Services (NAICS 541330). For instance, contracts for developing advanced weapon systems, aerospace technologies, or complex simulation and modeling often reach or exceed this value. The specific nature of the services – focusing on aviation and missile command – suggests it aligns with high-priority defense R&D initiatives. A detailed comparison would involve analyzing contract databases for awards with similar scopes, durations, and technical requirements to determine if the pricing is competitive and reflects fair market value.

What are the primary risks associated with a five-year firm-fixed-price contract for advanced R&D services?

A primary risk with a five-year firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract for advanced R&D is the potential for scope creep or unforeseen technical challenges that could render the initial price inadequate. While FFP aims to cap costs, R&D is inherently uncertain; breakthroughs may require more resources, or initial assumptions might prove incorrect, leading to contractor requests for modifications or potential disputes. Another risk is contractor performance; if the contractor lacks the necessary expertise or resources, or if key personnel depart, the government might not receive the expected outcomes. Furthermore, technological obsolescence is a risk in long-term R&D; the technology being developed might be outdated by the time the contract concludes. Finally, the government bears the risk if the R&D investment does not yield the desired operational capabilities or strategic advantages.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' approach likely to be in ensuring cost-effectiveness for this specific engineering services contract?

The 'full and open competition' approach is generally considered highly effective in ensuring cost-effectiveness for engineering services contracts, especially those with a well-defined scope, even within R&D. By allowing all responsible sources to submit bids, it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing. The presence of three bidders, as indicated, suggests a degree of competition, which typically drives down costs and encourages innovation. The firm-fixed-price contract type further enhances cost control, as the contractor assumes most of the cost risk. However, the effectiveness can be moderated by the complexity and uncertainty inherent in R&D; if the technical requirements are not precisely defined or if unforeseen challenges arise, the initial competitive pricing might become less relevant. Nonetheless, competition remains a crucial mechanism for achieving value for taxpayer money.

What are the historical spending patterns for engineering and R&D services by the U.S. Army, and how does this contract fit within them?

The U.S. Army consistently allocates significant funding towards engineering and R&D services to maintain its technological superiority and develop advanced capabilities. Historical spending patterns reveal a strong emphasis on areas such as aviation, missile defense, ground vehicle modernization, and C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance). Contracts for these services often involve long durations and substantial values, reflecting the complexity and long-term nature of defense acquisition. This specific contract, valued at $189 million over five years for engineering technical services with an R&D component, aligns well with these historical patterns. It addresses critical needs within aviation and missile systems, areas that have historically received substantial investment. The spending reflects a continued commitment to innovation and modernization within these key defense domains.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CGI Inc (UEI: 248513116)

Address: 12601 FAIR LAKES CIR, FAIRFAX, VA, 22033

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

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W31P4Q05A0030

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline