DoD's $24.9M contract for engineering services awarded to Engineering Solutions & Products LLC shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,927,876 ($24.9M)

Contractor: Engineering Solutions & Products LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-03-31

End Date: 2007-04-25

Contract Duration: 390 days

Daily Burn Rate: $63.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200606!003357!2100!W15P7T!USA COMMUNICATIONS-ELECTRONICS !W15P7T05DJ222 !A!N! !Y!0008 ! !20060331!20090426!931221258!931221258!931221258!N!ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUC!4 INDUSTRIAL WAY W FL 3 !EATONTOWN !NJ!07724!19840!025!34!EATONTOWN !MONMOUTH !NEW JERSEY!+000015681944!N!N!000000000000!N058!INSTALLATION OF EQ/COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !S1 !SERVICES !294 !FBCB2 !541330!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!N!Y!2!002!B! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! !B!A! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: EATONTOWN, MONMOUTH County, NEW JERSEY, 07724

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.9 million to ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUCTS LLC for work described as: 200606!003357!2100!W15P7T!USA COMMUNICATIONS-ELECTRONICS !W15P7T05DJ222 !A!N! !Y!0008 ! !20060331!20090426!931221258!931221258!931221258!N!ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUC!4 INDUSTRIAL WAY W FL 3 !EATONTOWN !NJ!07724!19840!025!34!EATONTOWN !MONM… Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its duration and scope, warranting further investigation into cost-effectiveness. 2. Competition was full and open, suggesting a competitive bidding process, but the final price needs benchmarking. 3. The contract's duration of 390 days for installation services raises questions about efficiency and potential for cost overruns. 4. Performance context is limited, making it difficult to assess the contractor's track record and the overall success of the project. 5. The contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, which can be prone to scope creep and cost escalation if not managed tightly. 6. The absence of small business set-asides or subcontracting plans may limit opportunities for smaller firms in this procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award amount of $24.9 million for a 390-day contract for installation of communication equipment appears substantial. Without specific details on the scope of work, it is difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the average daily cost is approximately $63,918, which seems high for installation services alone. Further analysis is needed to determine if the pricing reflects the complexity and market rates for the services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited. The presence of two bids suggests a degree of competition. However, the number of bidders is relatively low, which could potentially limit the downward pressure on pricing. A more robust competition with a higher number of bids might have resulted in a more favorable price for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition was utilized, the limited number of bids received may have prevented taxpayers from realizing the lowest possible price for these services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military units requiring updated or installed communication and electronic equipment. The services delivered include the installation of communication equipment, crucial for maintaining operational readiness. The geographic impact is centered in New Jersey, where the contractor is located, but the ultimate deployment of the equipment could be global. Workforce implications include potential employment opportunities for technicians and engineers involved in the installation process.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

High average daily cost raises concerns about potential overspending.
Limited number of bids may indicate insufficient market outreach or contractor capacity.
Contract duration might be extended, leading to increased costs beyond initial estimates.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it hard to gauge project success and contractor efficiency.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring a broad solicitation process.
Contractor is based in the US, supporting domestic industry.
Contract addresses critical communication and electronic equipment needs for the Department of Defense.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), which encompasses firms providing engineering consulting and design services. The market for defense-related engineering services is substantial, driven by the need for advanced technological solutions and infrastructure support. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the type and scale of equipment being installed. However, the significant award amount suggests a project of considerable scope within this sector.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting plans. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific procurement were limited. The prime contractor, Engineering Solutions & Products LLC, is likely a mid-to-large-sized firm, and the absence of small business involvement could mean a missed opportunity to foster growth within the small business defense contracting ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting command and potentially the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated by the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), which publishes contract awards. However, detailed project-level oversight and Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would depend on specific performance issues or audits initiated during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Procurement
Army Communications and Electronics Command
Engineering and Technical Services
Installation and Support Contracts
Defense Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

High potential cost relative to contract duration.
Limited number of bids received despite full and open competition.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in public data.
Ambiguity in the scope of work and specific equipment installed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.9 million to ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUCTS LLC. 200606!003357!2100!W15P7T!USA COMMUNICATIONS-ELECTRONICS !W15P7T05DJ222 !A!N! !Y!0008 ! !20060331!20090426!931221258!931221258!931221258!N!ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUC!4 INDUSTRIAL WAY W FL 3 !EATONTOWN !NJ!07724!19840!025!34!EATONTOWN !MONMOUTH !NEW JERSEY!+000015681944!N!N!000000000000!N058!INSTALLATION OF EQ/COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !S1 !SERVICES !294 !FBCB2 !541330!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUCTS 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 $24.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-03-31. End: 2007-04-25.

What specific communication and electronic equipment was installed under this contract, and what was the scope of work?

The data indicates the contract was for 'INSTALLATION OF EQ/COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT'. However, the specific types of equipment are not detailed in the provided data. The scope of work likely involved the physical installation, integration, and testing of various communication systems and electronic devices. Without a detailed statement of work (SOW) or contract line item numbers (CLINs) specifying the equipment, it's impossible to ascertain the precise nature and complexity of the installation. This lack of specificity makes it challenging to fully assess the value proposition and justify the $24.9 million award.

How does the $24.9 million award compare to similar installation contracts for communication equipment within the Department of Defense?

Benchmarking this $24.9 million award against similar contracts is difficult without more granular data on the specific equipment, location, and duration of comparable projects. However, the contract's duration of approximately 13 months (390 days) results in an average daily cost of roughly $63,918. This figure appears high for what is described as 'installation' services. Typically, installation contracts, while requiring skilled labor, might not reach such high daily expenditures unless they involve highly specialized, complex systems, extensive site preparation, or significant integration challenges. A more detailed comparison with contracts for similar equipment types and installation complexities would be necessary to definitively assess value for money.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and did the contractor meet them?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance assessment reports for this contract. Performance evaluation is crucial for understanding if the contractor, Engineering Solutions & Products LLC, delivered the required services satisfactorily and within the stipulated timelines and quality standards. Without access to performance metrics, such as on-time completion rates, system functionality post-installation, or adherence to technical specifications, it is impossible to gauge the contractor's track record on this specific award or to determine if the significant investment yielded the expected operational benefits for the Department of the Army.

What is the track record of Engineering Solutions & Products LLC with federal contracts, particularly in installation and communication equipment?

Engineering Solutions & Products LLC has a history of federal contracting, as indicated by this award. However, a comprehensive review of their track record would require analyzing their complete contract history across various agencies. This includes examining past performance on similar installation and communication equipment projects, their success rate in meeting deadlines and budget constraints, and any documented performance issues or disputes. Without a broader dataset, it's difficult to definitively assess their expertise and reliability specifically in this domain, although the award itself suggests they met the initial requirements for this particular contract.

Were there any identified risks or challenges during the performance of this contract, and how were they mitigated?

The provided data does not contain information regarding specific risks or challenges encountered during the performance of this contract, nor does it detail mitigation strategies employed. Typical risks in such contracts could include supply chain disruptions for equipment, unforeseen site conditions, technical integration issues, or labor shortages. Effective risk management is critical for ensuring project success and controlling costs. The absence of this information limits the ability to assess the contractor's project management capabilities and the overall effectiveness of the government's oversight in managing potential pitfalls.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar communication equipment installation services by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar services by the Department of the Army is essential for context. While this specific contract awarded $24.9 million, understanding the typical range, frequency, and average cost of such installations over several fiscal years would provide valuable insight. Without this historical data, it's challenging to determine if this particular award represents an outlier, a consistent trend, or a deviation from established spending norms. Such analysis could reveal whether costs have been escalating, if competition has been consistently limited, or if specific technological upgrades have driven up prices.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT › INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4 INDUSTRIAL WAY W FL 3, EATONTOWN, NJ, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T05DJ222

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline