DoD's $30M Administrative Management Consulting Contract Awarded to Serco Services Inc. in 2009

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,884,206 ($29.9M)

Contractor: Serco Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-29

End Date: 2011-09-18

Contract Duration: 719 days

Daily Burn Rate: $41.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FIXED PRICED LABOR TAS::21 2020::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: PATUXENT RIVER, ST. MARY'S County, MARYLAND, 20670, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.9 million to SERCO SERVICES INC for work described as: FIXED PRICED LABOR TAS::21 2020::TAS Key points: 1. Contract value of $30M over its period of performance suggests a significant engagement for consulting services. 2. The 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services' NAICS code indicates a focus on operational efficiency and strategic planning. 3. Awarded under 'Full and Open Competition', this contract likely benefited from a competitive bidding process. 4. The contract duration of 719 days (approx. 2 years) is typical for complex consulting engagements. 5. The contract was awarded as 'Firm Fixed Price', which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 6. The 'MD' contract type suggests a multi-year delivery, potentially with options. 7. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates the primary award was not specifically targeted to small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of approximately $30 million for administrative management consulting services over two years requires benchmarking against similar DoD contracts. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator if the contractor successfully delivered within the agreed price. Further analysis would involve comparing the per-unit cost of consulting hours or project milestones to industry standards and other government contracts for similar services.

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 a bid. This typically involves a robust solicitation process, including public announcements and detailed proposal requirements. The presence of 6 bidders, as indicated by the 'no' field, suggests a healthy level of competition for this contract. A competitive environment generally leads to better pricing and service offerings as contractors vie for the award.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition with multiple bidders generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through competitive pricing and encouraging efficient service delivery from the winning contractor.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army, receiving support for administrative management and general management consulting. Services delivered would focus on improving operational efficiency, strategic planning, and potentially organizational restructuring within the Army. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the Department of the Army's operational areas, potentially worldwide. Workforce implications could include the engagement of specialized consultants to augment or advise existing Army personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true impact and value delivered.
The firm fixed-price nature, while shifting risk, could lead to scope creep if not managed tightly.
Without detailed breakdown of services, it's hard to ascertain if the $30M was optimally utilized.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that likely yielded a fair price.
Firm fixed-price contract type transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The contract was awarded to Serco Services Inc., a known entity in government contracting, potentially indicating a level of established capability.

Sector Analysis

The administrative management and general management consulting services sector is a significant part of the professional services market, supporting both government and commercial entities. This contract falls within the broader professional services category, which is characterized by a wide range of specialized expertise. The Department of Defense is a major consumer of these services, often seeking to improve efficiency, implement new technologies, and manage complex operations. Benchmarking this contract's value against other similar consulting engagements within the federal government would provide further context on its scale and pricing.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses ('sb': false). Therefore, the primary award did not directly target small business participation. However, the prime contractor, Serco Services Inc., may have subcontracting opportunities for small businesses as part of fulfilling the contract requirements. The extent of small business subcontracting would depend on the specific terms of the contract and Serco's subcontracting plan, if any.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contract administration office within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring, invoice review, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally facilitated 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 or closeout.

Related Government Programs

Management and Financial Consulting, Acquisition and Technology Services
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Defense-Wide Contract Actions
Army Consulting Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope is not tightly managed.
Risk of contractor not meeting performance expectations due to FFP structure.
Lack of detailed service breakdown hinders precise value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.9 million to SERCO SERVICES INC. FIXED PRICED LABOR TAS::21 2020::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SERCO SERVICES 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 $29.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-29. End: 2011-09-18.

What specific types of administrative and management consulting services were provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 541611, 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services'. This broad category typically encompasses services such as strategic planning, organizational analysis, process improvement, business process reengineering, executive-level advice, and general management consulting. Without access to the contract's statement of work (SOW) or task orders, the precise nature of the services delivered remains unspecified. However, it is reasonable to infer that the Department of the Army engaged Serco Services Inc. to address specific management challenges, enhance operational effectiveness, or implement strategic initiatives within its administrative functions.

How does the $30 million contract value compare to similar consulting contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

The $30 million total value for a two-year administrative management consulting contract is a substantial amount, reflecting a significant engagement. To benchmark this, one would typically compare it to other 'Full and Open Competition' contracts under NAICS 541611 awarded by the Department of Defense or other large federal agencies during a similar timeframe (around 2009-2011). Factors like contract duration, specific deliverables, and the level of expertise required influence pricing. While $30 million over two years is considerable, without detailed comparisons of scope and service levels, it's difficult to definitively label it as high or low. However, it suggests a complex and potentially high-impact project.

What were the key risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract, and how were they managed?

For a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, the primary risk is that the contractor (Serco Services Inc.) may incur costs exceeding the agreed-upon price, potentially leading to financial losses for the contractor or, conversely, a lack of incentive to control costs if the price is too high. Risks for the government include the contractor potentially cutting corners on quality or scope to maintain profitability. Effective management of an FFP contract involves a clearly defined Statement of Work (SOW), robust performance monitoring by the government, and proactive communication to address any deviations or issues promptly. The government's risk is mitigated by the competitive bidding process which should have established a fair price.

What was the contractor's track record prior to this award, and did it influence the selection?

The provided data does not include information on Serco Services Inc.'s specific track record or past performance evaluations prior to this 2009 award. However, government contracting agencies like the Department of Defense typically conduct thorough past performance reviews as part of the source selection process, especially for significant contracts awarded under full and open competition. A positive track record with previous government contracts, particularly those involving similar services or scale, would likely have been a favorable factor in Serco's selection. Conversely, negative past performance could have disqualified them. Without access to their pre-award performance data, this remains speculative.

How did the competition level (6 bidders) impact the final price and service quality?

Having six bidders for this contract suggests a healthy level of competition. In a competitive environment, bidders are incentivized to offer the most attractive combination of price and technical approach to win the contract. This typically drives down prices compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario. Furthermore, multiple bidders often lead to a wider range of innovative solutions and higher quality service offerings as contractors strive to differentiate themselves. The presence of six bidders likely resulted in a more favorable price for the government and potentially higher quality services than if fewer companies had competed.

What is the historical spending pattern for administrative management consulting services within the Department of the Army?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award from 2009. To understand historical spending patterns for administrative management consulting services within the Department of the Army, a broader analysis of contract data over multiple fiscal years would be necessary. This would involve examining the total dollar value of contracts awarded under NAICS code 541611 (and potentially related codes) by the Army over time, identifying trends in contract types (FFP, T&M, etc.), competition levels, and major contractors. Such an analysis could reveal whether spending in this category has increased or decreased, and whether the Army relies more on competitive or sole-source awards for these services.

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: W91WAW08R0008

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Serco Group PLC (UEI: 298452707)

Address: 12012 SUNSET HILLS ROAD, RESTON, VA, 20190

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,664,423

Exercised Options: $32,664,423

Current Obligation: $29,884,206

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91WAW08D0014

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline