DoD's $13.27M contract for site design awarded to Engility Corporation shows fair value with 1 bidder

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,270,921 ($13.3M)

Contractor: Engility Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-02-21

End Date: 2011-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,409 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SITE DESIGN

Place of Performance

Location: CHANTILLY, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20151, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.3 million to ENGILITY CORPORATION for work described as: SITE DESIGN Key points: 1. The contract value of $13.27 million for site design services appears reasonable given the duration and scope. 2. Competition was limited to one bidder, raising questions about price discovery and potential for cost savings. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. Performance occurred over a significant period (1409 days), suggesting a complex or long-term project. 5. The contract falls under the 'Other Motion Picture and Video Industries' NAICS code, which may indicate specialized services. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Navy, a major component of the Department of Defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $13.27 million contract for site design is challenging without more specific details on the services rendered. However, considering the 1409-day duration, the average annual cost is approximately $941,900. This figure needs to be compared against similar site design projects within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies to ascertain true value for money. The firm fixed-price nature suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. Despite this broad competition, only one bid was received. This outcome could suggest that the market for these specific site design services is narrow, or that other potential bidders chose not to participate for various reasons. A single bid in a full and open competition scenario warrants further investigation into the solicitation's clarity and the market's responsiveness.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is ideal, receiving only one bid means taxpayers may not have benefited from the full potential of competitive pricing. The government secured a price, but it's unclear if it was the best possible price achievable with multiple competing offers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Navy, which received site design services essential for its operations. The services delivered likely supported infrastructure development or modernization projects within the Navy's purview. The geographic impact is concentrated in Virginia, where the contract was administered. Workforce implications would include employment for designers, engineers, and related professionals involved in the site design process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under the 'Other Motion Picture and Video Industries' NAICS code (512199), which is an unusual classification for 'site design.' Typically, site design services are associated with construction, engineering, or architectural industries. This suggests the 'site design' might be related to specialized facilities for media production or similar niche applications within the defense sector. The Department of Defense, and specifically the Navy, often procures a wide range of specialized services, and this contract likely represents a specific, perhaps unique, requirement.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides, as the 'sb' field is false. Furthermore, the 'ss' field is also false, meaning it was not a small business prime award. This suggests that the prime contract was awarded to a large business, and subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on Engility Corporation's internal policies and the specific needs of the site design project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Navy contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, although detailed performance reports are often not publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

defense, department-of-the-navy, site-design, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, engility-corporation, virginia, motion-picture-video-industries, large-contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.3 million to ENGILITY CORPORATION. SITE DESIGN

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENGILITY CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-02-21. End: 2011-12-31.

What specific type of 'site design' was procured under NAICS code 512199 for the Department of the Navy?

The classification under NAICS code 512199, 'Other Motion Picture and Video Industries,' for a 'SITE DESIGN' contract is highly unusual. Typically, site design falls under categories like Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services (e.g., 541310, 541330). This suggests the 'site design' might not be for traditional infrastructure but rather for specialized facilities related to motion picture or video production, such as studios, sound stages, or related support infrastructure. Without further documentation, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact nature, but it implies a niche requirement within the Navy's operational or support functions that intersects with media or visual production capabilities.

How does the $13.27 million contract value compare to similar site design contracts awarded by the Department of the Navy?

Comparing this $13.27 million contract value requires access to a broader dataset of similar 'site design' contracts, ideally under comparable NAICS codes or service descriptions. Given the 1409-day duration, the average annual value is approximately $941,900. If this contract was for standard architectural or engineering site design, this annual figure might be within a typical range for large-scale federal projects. However, the unusual NAICS code complicates direct comparison. If the site design was for specialized video production facilities, the cost benchmark would be entirely different and likely higher due to specialized equipment and environmental needs.

What are the potential risks associated with a full and open competition resulting in only one bid?

A primary risk of a full and open competition yielding only one bid is the potential lack of robust price competition. While the government received an offer, it's impossible to know if other companies would have offered better pricing or terms had they participated. This situation can arise from several factors: the solicitation may have been poorly advertised, the requirements may have been overly restrictive or unclear, the market for such specialized services might be very small, or potential bidders may have perceived the contract as too risky or unprofitable. This single-bid scenario reduces the government's leverage in price negotiation and may indicate a need to re-evaluate market outreach or solicitation strategies for future procurements.

What does the firm fixed-price contract type imply for the government's financial exposure?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered favorable for the government, especially for services where the scope of work is well-defined. It means the contractor, Engility Corporation in this case, agreed to a set price for the specified site design services. Any cost overruns incurred by the contractor during performance are their responsibility and do not increase the amount paid by the government. This structure effectively transfers the risk of cost escalation to the contractor, providing the government with budget certainty. The primary risk for the government shifts to ensuring the contractor delivers the required quality and scope within the agreed-upon price.

What is the historical spending pattern for site design services by the Department of the Navy?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for 'site design' by the Department of the Navy requires a comprehensive review of contract data over multiple fiscal years. This specific contract, awarded in 2008 and ending in 2011, represents spending during that period. To understand patterns, one would need to aggregate spending on similar services (identified by keywords or relevant NAICS codes) across different Navy commands and installations. Trends might reveal an increase or decrease in demand for site design, shifts in average contract values, or changes in the types of services procured. Without broader data, this single contract offers only a snapshot.

What is the track record of Engility Corporation in performing federal site design contracts?

Engility Corporation, prior to its acquisition by SAIC, had a significant track record with federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. While this specific contract is for 'site design,' Engility's broader portfolio often included IT, engineering, and technical services. Assessing their track record specifically for site design would involve reviewing past performance evaluations (if available) on similar contracts, looking at contract modifications, and examining any past performance issues or awards. Given their size and history, they were likely capable of performing complex technical services, but the specific success of this particular site design contract would depend on project-specific performance metrics.

Industry Classification

NAICS: InformationMotion Picture and Video IndustriesOther Motion Picture and Video Industries

Product/Service Code: PHOTO, MAP, PRINT, PUBLICATIONPHOTOGR, MAPPING, PRINTING, PUBLISH

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: M6785407R8035

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3750 CENTERVIEW DR, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,270,921

Exercised Options: $13,270,921

Current Obligation: $13,270,921

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: M6785408D8047

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2008-02-21

Current End Date: 2011-12-31

Potential End Date: 2011-12-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2015-08-28

More Contracts from Engility Corporation

View all Engility Corporation federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending