Engility Services LLC awarded $31M for Fielding and Training Support, with a significant portion for administrative management

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,085,096 ($31.1M)

Contractor: Engility Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-12-16

End Date: 2017-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,845 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: FIELDING AND TRAINING SUPPORT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: ANDOVER, ESSEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01810

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.1 million to ENGILITY SERVICES, LLC for work described as: FIELDING AND TRAINING SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract's primary focus on administrative management consulting suggests a need for specialized expertise in organizational efficiency. 2. A substantial portion of the contract value is allocated to services that may not directly involve frontline defense operations. 3. The duration of the contract (over 7 years) indicates a long-term need for these support services. 4. The 'Time and Materials' pricing structure can introduce cost variability if not closely managed. 5. The contract was awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for these services. 6. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $31 million over nearly 8 years for administrative management and general management consulting services appears reasonable given the duration and scope. However, without specific benchmarks for similar large-scale training and fielding support contracts, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The 'Time and Materials' pricing model, while flexible, carries inherent risks of cost overruns if not meticulously monitored against established labor rates and project milestones. Comparing this to other contracts for similar support functions within the Department of Defense would provide a clearer picture of its cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors were likely invited to bid. The presence of a single award (no: 1) suggests that Engility Services, LLC was selected as the most advantageous offer. The level of competition is positive for price discovery, as it incentivizes bidders to offer competitive pricing and terms to win the contract. However, the specific number of bids received is not provided, which would offer further insight into the intensity of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through market forces. It ensures that the government explores a wide range of potential providers, increasing the likelihood of securing services at a fair market price.

Public Impact

Military personnel and units requiring fielding and training support services benefit from the expertise provided. The contract supports the Department of the Army's operational readiness and training objectives. Services are likely delivered across various Army installations, impacting readiness nationwide. The contract may indirectly support a workforce of consultants and trainers, contributing to specialized employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost escalation due to Time and Materials pricing structure.
Lack of specific details on performance metrics and their impact on contractor compensation.
Absence of small business participation goals may limit opportunities for smaller firms.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
Long-term contract duration indicates a sustained need and potential for stable support.
Focus on administrative and management consulting suggests a strategic approach to operational efficiency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically administrative management and general management consulting. This sector is crucial for government operations, providing expertise in areas like organizational efficiency, strategic planning, and program management. The total federal spending in this category is substantial, with numerous contracts awarded annually to support various agency functions. This particular contract's value of $31 million over its period of performance is significant but not extraordinary within the broader context of large federal support service agreements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and does not appear to have a small business subcontracting plan noted (ss: false). This suggests that the primary award went to a large business, and there may be limited mandated opportunities for small businesses to participate directly as subcontractors. Further review of subcontracting reports would be necessary to determine the extent of small business involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program managers within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring, invoice review, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Defense Training and Simulation Support
Military Logistics and Readiness Support
Government Management Consulting Services
Army Fielding and Modernization Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing.
Long contract duration may lead to vendor lock-in or outdated service relevance.
Limited visibility into small business participation.
Scope creep risk over the contract's extended period.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.1 million to ENGILITY SERVICES, LLC. FIELDING AND TRAINING SUPPORT SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENGILITY SERVICES, 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 $31.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-12-16. End: 2017-09-30.

What is the historical spending trend for Fielding and Training Support Services within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending trends for Fielding and Training Support Services within the Department of the Army reveals a consistent demand for these critical functions. Over the past decade, the Army has allocated billions of dollars to ensure its forces are adequately equipped, trained, and ready for deployment. Spending in this category often fluctuates based on geopolitical events, modernization initiatives, and budget appropriations. For instance, periods of increased operational tempo or the introduction of new weapon systems typically correlate with higher expenditures on training and fielding support. While specific figures for 'Fielding and Training Support Services' as a distinct category can vary in reporting, related expenditures on simulation, logistics, and personnel training consistently represent a significant portion of the Army's overall budget, underscoring the enduring need for such services.

How does the 'Time and Materials' contract type potentially impact cost control compared to fixed-price contracts for similar services?

The 'Time and Materials' (T&M) contract type, as used in this $31 million award to Engility Services, LLC, presents a different risk profile for cost control compared to fixed-price contracts. In a T&M arrangement, the government pays the contractor for the actual labor hours expended and the cost of materials used, plus a fixed fee or profit. This offers flexibility, allowing for adjustments in scope or unforeseen complexities without requiring contract modifications for price changes. However, it places a greater burden on the government for oversight to ensure efficiency and prevent cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, where the contractor assumes most of the cost risk, T&M contracts shift a significant portion of that risk to the government. Effective cost control in T&M relies heavily on robust monitoring of labor hours, rates, and material costs, as well as clear definitions of 'best efforts' and efficient performance.

What is Engility Services, LLC's track record with similar Department of Defense contracts?

Engility Services, LLC, prior to its acquisition by SAIC, had a substantial track record with the Department of Defense, often securing large, complex contracts across various service domains. Their portfolio frequently included IT services, engineering support, training, and program management for multiple military branches. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts would involve reviewing award histories, performance evaluations (if publicly available), and any documented instances of contract disputes or successes. Given their history, it's probable that Engility possessed the necessary security clearances, technical expertise, and management capacity to handle significant defense contracts. However, a comprehensive assessment would require delving into specific contract details, including performance metrics, on-time delivery, and adherence to budget on prior engagements to fully gauge their reliability and capability for this specific Fielding and Training Support Services contract.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this duration (nearly 8 years) for administrative management consulting?

Contracts with a long duration, such as this nearly 8-year award for administrative management consulting, carry several potential risks. Firstly, the risk of scope creep is elevated; over an extended period, requirements can evolve, potentially leading to unmanaged expansion of services and costs if not carefully controlled through contract modifications. Secondly, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes heavily reliant on a single provider, potentially diminishing future competition and bargaining power. Thirdly, the relevance of the initial consulting expertise may diminish over time due to changes in technology, regulations, or organizational strategy, requiring continuous adaptation by the contractor. Finally, long-term contracts can be susceptible to budget uncertainties or shifts in government priorities, potentially leading to early termination or significant modifications, impacting both the contractor's investment and the government's continuity of service.

How does the classification 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' (NAICS 541611) typically align with 'Fielding and Training Support Services'?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541611, 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services,' can indeed align with 'Fielding and Training Support Services' in several ways, although it might not be the most direct classification. Fielding and training support often involves significant logistical planning, organizational efficiency improvements, process optimization, and strategic advice related to deploying new equipment or training protocols. Management consultants under NAICS 541611 are often tasked with analyzing existing operations, identifying areas for improvement, developing implementation strategies, and advising on organizational structures – all of which are critical components of successful fielding and training operations. For example, a consultant might help streamline the process of distributing new equipment to units, develop more effective training schedules, or advise on the best organizational structures to manage large-scale training exercises. Therefore, while the core service might be 'fielding and training,' the underlying need for expert advice on managing these complex processes often falls under the umbrella of management consulting.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W91QUZ07R0007

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Science Applications International Corporation (UEI: 078745061)

Address: 35 NEW ENGLAND BUSINESS CTR DR STE 200, ANDOVER, MA, 01810

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $37,825,596

Exercised Options: $31,085,096

Current Obligation: $31,085,096

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91QUZ09D0039

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline