Grant Thornton LLP awarded $15.9M for DoD program management support, highlighting administrative management consulting services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,886,286 ($15.9M)

Contractor: Grant Thornton LLP

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-06-05

End Date: 2014-11-04

Contract Duration: 1,978 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: BASE PERIOD DCOE PROGRAM MGMT SUPT

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA CITY County, VIRGINIA, 22314

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.9 million to GRANT THORNTON LLP for work described as: BASE PERIOD DCOE PROGRAM MGMT SUPT Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 3. Services provided fall under Administrative Management and General Management Consulting. 4. The contract duration was 1978 days, indicating a long-term engagement. 5. The award was a Delivery Order, suggesting it was part of a larger contract vehicle. 6. The base period value was approximately $15.9 million. 7. The contractor, Grant Thornton LLP, is a known entity in professional services. 8. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's base period value of approximately $15.9 million for program management support appears reasonable given the duration and the nature of consulting services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for administrative management consulting services would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure is generally favorable for the government as it caps costs.

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 typically leads to a more robust selection process and potentially better pricing. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific award.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from enhanced program management support. Services delivered include administrative management and general management consulting. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of the Army's operational areas. The contract supports professional services roles, potentially impacting the consulting workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep in long-term consulting contracts if not managed tightly.
Reliance on a single contractor for extended program management could create knowledge silos.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract structure limits cost overruns for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a fair and transparent procurement process.
Award to a well-established firm like Grant Thornton may indicate a track record of performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically administrative management and general management consulting. This sector is crucial for government operations, providing expertise in areas like strategic planning, organizational efficiency, and program oversight. The market for these services is large and competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized capabilities. This contract represents a portion of the broader federal spending on consulting services, which often supports complex program management and administrative functions across various agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements for this contract. As it was awarded under full and open competition, the primary focus was likely on best value from all eligible sources, rather than specifically targeting small businesses. Further analysis would be needed to determine if Grant Thornton LLP has a subcontracting plan that includes small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside with the Department of the Army contracting officer and program managers. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by capping costs. Transparency is generally maintained through the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where contract awards are reported. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Management and Consulting Services
Program Management Support
Department of Defense Contracts
Administrative Support Services

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of vendor lock-in or outdated methodologies.
Limited number of bids (2) could indicate potential barriers to entry or specific requirements.
Reliance on consulting services can be costly if not strategically managed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.9 million to GRANT THORNTON LLP. BASE PERIOD DCOE PROGRAM MGMT SUPT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GRANT THORNTON LLP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-06-05. End: 2014-11-04.

What is Grant Thornton LLP's track record with the Department of the Army and similar federal agencies?

Grant Thornton LLP is a large, well-established professional services firm with a significant history of contracting with various U.S. federal agencies, including the Department of Defense and the Department of the Army. Their experience typically spans financial advisory, management consulting, and audit services. Analyzing their past performance on similar program management support contracts, particularly those with the Army, would reveal their ability to meet performance requirements, manage costs, and adhere to schedules. Publicly available contract databases and agency performance reviews, where accessible, can provide insights into their past successes and any challenges encountered.

How does the $15.9 million base period cost compare to similar program management support contracts?

The $15.9 million base period cost for approximately 5.5 years (1978 days) of program management support translates to an average annual cost of roughly $2.9 million. To benchmark this value, one would compare it to contracts of similar scope, duration, and complexity awarded by the Department of the Army or other DoD components for administrative management and general management consulting services. Factors such as the specific deliverables, the level of expertise required, and the prevailing market rates for consulting services would influence this comparison. Without access to a detailed database of comparable contracts, a precise benchmark is difficult, but the annual cost appears within a plausible range for specialized consulting support.

What are the key risks associated with this contract, and how are they mitigated?

Key risks for this contract include potential cost overruns if the scope expands beyond the initial definition (though mitigated by the Firm Fixed Price structure), contractor performance issues, and reliance on a single vendor for critical support. Mitigation strategies would involve robust contract oversight by the Army, clear performance metrics, regular progress reviews, and potentially incorporating incentives or penalties tied to performance. The full and open competition process itself helps mitigate risks by selecting a contractor with a demonstrated capability. The long duration also presents a risk of the contractor's approach becoming outdated if not actively managed.

How effective has Grant Thornton LLP been in delivering program management support in the past?

Assessing the effectiveness of Grant Thornton LLP in delivering program management support requires examining past performance data. This includes reviewing contract performance reports, customer satisfaction surveys, and any documented instances of exceeding or failing to meet contract requirements. For this specific contract, the Department of the Army would have internal mechanisms to track performance against milestones and objectives. While specific effectiveness metrics are not provided in the summary data, the renewal or continuation of contracts with the same vendor often suggests satisfactory performance, although it is not a guarantee. A deeper dive into agency performance evaluations would be necessary for a definitive assessment.

What are the historical spending patterns for program management support within the Department of the Army?

Historical spending patterns for program management support within the Department of the Army are likely substantial, given the scale and complexity of military operations and acquisition programs. Agencies like the Army frequently contract for external expertise to manage intricate projects, improve organizational efficiency, and provide specialized administrative functions. Analyzing historical spending data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) would reveal trends in contract values, types of services procured, and the primary contractors utilized. This specific $15.9 million award represents one component of a much larger overall investment in program management and consulting services by the Army over time.

What is the significance of the contract being a Delivery Order?

The fact that this award is a Delivery Order (DO) signifies that it was issued under a pre-existing indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar type of contract vehicle. IDIQ contracts allow agencies to procure services or supplies over a period of time up to a certain maximum value, with specific orders placed as needed. A Delivery Order represents a specific task or requirement issued against that larger contract. This approach provides flexibility for the agency to obtain services quickly without needing to recompete the entire requirement each time. It also implies that the initial competition and selection of the IDIQ contract holder(s) occurred previously.

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

Solicitation ID: W81XWH05R0004

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Grant Thornton International Ltd (UEI: 347201258)

Address: 333 JOHN CARLYLE ST STE 500, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22314

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,199,244

Exercised Options: $15,886,286

Current Obligation: $15,886,286

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W81XWH08D0027

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline