DoD's $28.5M contract with THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC for technical services shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,460,808 ($28.5M)

Contractor: THE Mission Essential Group, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-28

End Date: 2010-09-27

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $78.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: LABOR

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BELVOIR, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22060

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.5 million to THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC for work described as: LABOR Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure warrants scrutiny for potential cost overruns. 2. Limited competition for this contract may have impacted price discovery and value for money. 3. The single award suggests a lack of robust market engagement. 4. Performance duration of 364 days is standard, but value needs ongoing assessment. 5. The contract falls under 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,' a broad category. 6. No small business set-aside was applied, indicating potential missed opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for complex services, can lead to higher costs if not managed tightly. Given the lack of competition, it's difficult to ascertain if the fixed fee accurately reflects market rates or if the government secured the best possible price. Further analysis of the contractor's performance and the specific services rendered would be needed to definitively assess value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This indicates that the Department of the Army identified a specific need that they believed only THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC could fulfill, or that circumstances precluded a competitive process. The absence of multiple bidders means there was no direct price comparison or incentive for offerors to lower their bids to win the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can result in higher costs for taxpayers as the government does not benefit from the competitive pressure that typically drives down prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel or government agencies requiring specialized technical support. Services delivered are broadly categorized as 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,' suggesting a wide range of potential support functions. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the Department of the Army's operational areas. Workforce implications could include the direct employment of individuals by THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC to fulfill the contract requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize higher costs if not rigorously managed.
Sole-source award limits price discovery and potentially increases cost to taxpayers.
Broad service category makes it difficult to assess specific performance and value without further detail.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a single entity suggests specialized capabilities were identified.
Fixed fee component provides some level of cost predictability compared to cost-plus-award-fee.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, a significant area of federal spending. This sector encompasses a wide array of support functions for government agencies, including research, consulting, engineering, and specialized technical assistance. The market for these services is competitive, but specific niches can be dominated by a few key players. Benchmarking requires comparing the contract's scope and value to similar services procured by other defense or civilian agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to involve significant subcontracting opportunities for them based on the provided information. This suggests that the primary contractor, THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC, is likely a larger entity or that the specific requirements of the contract did not lend themselves to a small business set-aside. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral to negative, as opportunities were not specifically directed towards them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms of the Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, including performance milestones and reporting requirements. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the broad service category. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Professional and Technical Services
Department of Defense Support Contracts
Cost-Plus Contracts
Sole-Source Procurements

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure can lead to cost overruns.
Broad service category lacks specificity for detailed performance assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.5 million to THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC. LABOR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, 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 $28.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-28. End: 2010-09-27.

What specific technical services were provided under this contract?

The contract falls under NAICS code 541990, 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services.' This is a broad category that can encompass a wide range of activities, including but not limited to scientific research and development, engineering services, environmental consulting, and specialized technical support. Without more specific details from the contract award documentation or performance reports, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact nature of the services rendered. However, given the Department of the Army as the agency, these services likely supported military operations, logistics, intelligence, or administrative functions requiring specialized expertise.

How does the $28.5 million total award compare to similar contracts for technical services within the Department of Defense?

Comparing this $28.5 million contract to similar ones within the Department of Defense (DoD) requires access to a broader dataset of federal procurements. However, as a single award for a 364-day duration, it represents a significant investment. Contracts in the 'Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' category for the DoD can range from a few million to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the scope, duration, and criticality of the services. A contract of this size for a single year suggests a substantial requirement. Without knowing the specific services, it's hard to benchmark precisely, but it falls within the mid-to-large range for individual service contracts of this duration.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure for this type of service?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts. While the fee is fixed, the government bears the risk of cost overruns. If the contractor's actual costs exceed their estimates, the government still pays the actual costs plus the predetermined fixed fee. This can lead to the government paying more than anticipated if cost management by the contractor is not rigorous or if unforeseen issues drive up expenses. Effective oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks.

Given this was a sole-source award, what does this imply about the contractor's unique qualifications or the market landscape?

A sole-source award implies that the Department of the Army determined that only THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC possessed the unique capabilities, qualifications, or resources necessary to fulfill the contract requirements. This could be due to proprietary technology, specialized expertise, existing infrastructure, or urgent needs where a competitive process was deemed impractical or detrimental. It suggests a limited market for these specific services or a strategic decision to engage a particular contractor. This also means taxpayers did not benefit from competitive bidding, potentially leading to a higher price than if multiple firms had competed.

What is the historical spending pattern for THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC with the Department of Defense?

To assess historical spending patterns for THE MISSION ESSENTIAL GROUP, LLC with the Department of Defense, one would need to query federal procurement databases for all contracts awarded to this entity. This specific contract represents $28.5 million in spending. Analyzing past awards would reveal the frequency, value, and types of services the company has provided to the DoD. Understanding this history can help identify trends, assess the contractor's track record, and determine if this award is consistent with previous engagements or represents a significant expansion of services or value.

Are there any indicators of potential waste, fraud, or abuse associated with this contract type or award method?

While the contract type (CPFF) and award method (sole-source) present inherent risks that can increase the potential for waste or inefficiency if not properly managed, they do not automatically indicate fraud or abuse. CPFF contracts require robust government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable. Sole-source awards necessitate a strong justification to ensure the government isn't overpaying due to lack of competition. Without specific evidence of impropriety, such as inflated costs, substandard performance, or conflicts of interest, these factors are considered risks to be managed rather than direct indicators of wrongdoing. Further investigation would be needed to confirm any such issues.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W911W409R0041

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4343 EASTON COMMONS STE 100, COLUMBUS, OH, 43219

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,460,808

Exercised Options: $28,460,808

Current Obligation: $28,460,808

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911W409D0103

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline