DoD's $54.6M consulting contract with CSRA LLC shows fair value, but limited competition raises concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $54,605,065 ($54.6M)

Contractor: Csra LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-03-29

End Date: 2020-03-12

Contract Duration: 1,444 days

Daily Burn Rate: $37.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF BASE AWARD

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $54.6 million to CSRA LLC for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF BASE AWARD Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar administrative management consulting services. 2. While CSRA LLC is a capable provider, the limited competition for this specific award warrants scrutiny. 3. The use of Time and Materials pricing introduces potential cost escalation risks. 4. Performance context suggests a need for ongoing monitoring to ensure objectives are met. 5. This contract falls within the broad professional services sector, supporting general management functions. 6. The award was made under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call, indicating a pre-negotiated framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award amount of $54.6 million over approximately four years suggests a moderate annual spend for administrative management consulting. Benchmarking against similar contracts for general management consulting services indicates that the pricing structure, while Time and Materials, appears to be within a reasonable range for the scope of work. However, the lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes a definitive value-for-money assessment challenging without further context on deliverables and outcomes.

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 offers. However, the data indicates only 3 bids were received. While full and open competition is the preferred method, a low number of bidders can sometimes suggest market limitations or specific requirements that may have inadvertently restricted participation, potentially impacting price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: A low number of bidders, even under full and open competition, can sometimes lead to less competitive pricing than a broader field of offerors might achieve. Taxpayers benefit from the assurance that the process was open, but the ultimate price achieved may not be the absolute lowest possible.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its various branches, receiving administrative and general management consulting support. Services delivered likely include strategic planning, organizational efficiency improvements, and operational support. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense's operational footprint, potentially nationwide or global. Workforce implications may involve supporting existing DoD personnel with specialized expertise or augmenting capacity.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials (T&M) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
A low number of bidders (3) in a full and open competition may indicate potential market concentration or barriers to entry.
The specific deliverables and performance metrics are not detailed, making it difficult to fully assess the value achieved.
The contract duration (1444 days) is substantial, requiring sustained oversight to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, adhering to principles of broad market access.
The contractor, CSRA LLC, is an established entity with experience in government contracting.
The contract was a BPA Call, suggesting a pre-existing framework agreement that may streamline future procurements.
The contract was awarded in Alabama, potentially benefiting the local economy through employment and subcontracting opportunities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector, specifically under Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. This sector is a significant component of federal spending, supporting a wide array of government functions. Comparable spending benchmarks for management consulting services vary widely based on the specific expertise required, but federal agencies consistently invest billions annually in such support to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As such, there are no direct subcontracting implications mandated by a small business set-aside. The primary contractor, CSRA LLC, is a large business. While large prime contracts can sometimes lead to subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, the absence of a set-aside means these opportunities are not guaranteed or specifically tracked within this award's structure.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance work statement and delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated by contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award information. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Management and Consulting Services
Professional Services
Defense Agency Support Services
Administrative Support Contracts
Information Technology Consulting (if applicable to management)

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing.
Limited competition despite Full and Open solicitation.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in available data.
Contract duration requires sustained oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $54.6 million to CSRA LLC. IGF::CT::IGF BASE AWARD

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CSRA LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $54.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-03-29. End: 2020-03-12.

What is CSRA LLC's track record with the Department of Defense and similar consulting contracts?

CSRA LLC, now part of General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), has a substantial history of contracting with the Department of Defense (DoD) and other federal agencies. Prior to its acquisition, CSRA held numerous prime contracts across various service areas, including IT modernization, professional services, and mission support. Their track record with the DoD is extensive, encompassing a wide range of programs and requiring diverse capabilities. For consulting services specifically, CSRA has been involved in projects related to strategic planning, organizational assessment, process improvement, and program management support. Evaluating their specific performance on this $54.6M contract would require reviewing performance reports, past performance questionnaires from previous solicitations, and any documented issues or commendations during the contract's period of performance (2016-2020).

How does the $54.6M award compare to typical spending on administrative management consulting services by the DoD?

The $54.6 million award over approximately four years represents an average annual spend of roughly $13.65 million for administrative management and general management consulting services. This figure is significant but falls within the expected range for major federal agencies like the Department of Defense, which often requires extensive support for its complex operations. Federal spending on consulting services across all agencies can reach tens of billions annually. For the DoD specifically, such contracts are common for optimizing organizational structures, improving operational efficiencies, and providing strategic guidance. Without knowing the precise scope and deliverables, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high or low spending, but it aligns with the scale of support typically procured by large defense organizations.

What are the primary risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract of this magnitude?

The primary risk associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract of this magnitude is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M contracts reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours at specified hourly rates and for the actual cost of materials. If the scope of work is not well-defined, or if project management and oversight are insufficient, the contractor may incur more labor hours or material costs than initially anticipated, leading to a final cost significantly exceeding the estimated amount. For a $54.6 million contract, this risk is substantial. Effective mitigation requires robust monitoring of labor hours, strict adherence to the ceiling price, clear definition of work requirements, and strong government oversight to ensure efficiency and prevent scope creep without proper modification.

What does the low number of bidders (3) in a 'full and open competition' suggest about this market?

A low number of bidders, such as three, in a 'full and open competition' can suggest several possibilities about the market for these specific administrative management and general management consulting services. It might indicate that the market is relatively concentrated, with only a few firms possessing the necessary expertise, clearances, or capacity to meet the government's requirements. Alternatively, the solicitation's requirements, evaluation criteria, or the anticipated contract value might have deterred a larger number of potential bidders. It could also reflect a strategic decision by potential bidders to focus their resources on other opportunities. From a taxpayer perspective, fewer bidders can sometimes translate to less competitive pricing, as the government may have fewer options to drive down costs through aggressive bidding.

How has federal spending on administrative management and general management consulting services evolved over the past decade?

Federal spending on administrative management and general management consulting services has remained a significant and relatively consistent area of expenditure over the past decade, often fluctuating based on agency priorities, budget cycles, and specific needs for organizational reform or efficiency improvements. While precise figures vary year to year and by agency, the overall trend shows a sustained demand for these services across government. Agencies frequently engage consultants to help navigate complex policy changes, implement new technologies, improve internal processes, and manage large-scale programs. Spending in this category is often influenced by broader government initiatives aimed at improving efficiency, accountability, and performance. The Department of Defense, being the largest federal agency, consistently represents a substantial portion of this spending.

What are the implications of this contract being awarded as a BPA Call?

Awarding this contract as a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call signifies that it was placed under an existing, pre-established BPA. BPAs are simplified acquisition vehicles that allow federal agencies to streamline the procurement of recurring goods or services from approved vendors. In this case, CSRA LLC was likely awarded a master BPA, and this specific contract represents a 'call' or order against that BPA. The implications include potentially faster award times, pre-negotiated terms and conditions, and possibly pre-determined pricing structures (though this specific award was T&M). For taxpayers, BPAs can offer efficiencies, but the underlying competition for the master BPA itself is crucial for ensuring overall value. A BPA Call means the competition for this specific task order might have been limited to vendors already on the BPA, or it could have been competed among those vendors.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting 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: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 3170 FAIRVIEW PARK DR, FALLS CHURCH, VA, 22042

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $56,437,981

Exercised Options: $54,605,065

Current Obligation: $54,605,065

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W31P4Q16A0004

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline