Army contract for engineering services awarded to MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION for over $18.9 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,811,237 ($18.8M)

Contractor: CGI Federal Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-03-16

End Date: 2005-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,751 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200106!001435!2100!AH01 !USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!DAAH0100D0016 !A!N!*!Y!0009 !20010316!20050801!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000000047050!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541990!*!*!5!B!M! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!Z!A !N!Z!2!004!B! !C!N!Z! ! !N!A!Y!N!Z! ! ! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35806

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.8 million to CGI FEDERAL INC. for work described as: 200106!001435!2100!AH01 !USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!DAAH0100D0016 !A!N!*!Y!0009 !20010316!20050801!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADIS… Key points: 1. Contract value of $18.9 million for engineering technical services. 2. Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of approximately 4.8 years, from March 2001 to December 2005. 4. Services provided under labor hours, suggesting a flexible approach to task execution. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major defense entity. 6. The contractor, MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION, is based in Huntsville, Alabama.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $18.9 million for engineering technical services over nearly five years appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized defense support. However, without specific benchmarks for similar engineering technical services contracts from the same period or detailed scope of work, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The use of labor hours can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly, but it also allows for flexibility in adapting to evolving project needs. The number of offers received (4) suggests some level of competition, which should have helped in price discovery.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data indicates that four offers were received. This level of competition is generally positive, suggesting that the government sought a broad range of potential contractors and that pricing was likely influenced by market forces. A higher number of bidders typically correlates with better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process for this contract likely resulted in a more competitive bid environment, which is beneficial for taxpayers by potentially driving down costs and ensuring the government receives services at a fair market price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army units requiring engineering and technical support services. The contract delivers essential engineering and technical services to support aviation and missile command operations. The geographic impact is primarily centered around the contractor's location in Huntsville, Alabama, and the Army facilities served. The contract supports a workforce skilled in engineering and technical disciplines within the defense sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost creep due to labor hour contract type if not closely monitored.
Limited transparency on specific performance metrics and quality outcomes.
Dependence on a single contractor for a significant period could pose a risk if performance degrades.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
Contractor is located in a region with a strong defense industry presence.
Services are critical to Army aviation and missile command operations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader aerospace and defense industry. The market for such services is characterized by specialized expertise, high barriers to entry, and significant government procurement. The total contract value of $18.9 million is moderate within the context of large-scale defense contracts, but represents a substantial investment in specialized technical support. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within the Department of Defense's broader engineering and technical services procurement categories.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. It was awarded under full and open competition. Therefore, the direct impact on small business set-asides is likely minimal, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine subcontracting plans and their adherence.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the U.S. Army Contracting Command and the specific program executive office it supports. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Army Aviation and Missile Command Support Services
Department of Defense Engineering Services
Defense Technical Support Contracts
Aerospace and Defense Engineering

Risk Flags

Contract awarded using labor hours, which can pose a risk of cost overruns if not managed effectively.
Limited information available on specific performance metrics and quality assurance.
Contract duration of nearly five years requires sustained oversight to ensure continued value.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.8 million to CGI FEDERAL INC.. 200106!001435!2100!AH01 !USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!DAAH0100D0016 !A!N!*!Y!0009 !20010316!20050801!189071368!189071368!189071368!N!MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION !4811A BRADFORD DRIVE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000000047050!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541990!*!*!5!B!M! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CGI FEDERAL 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 $18.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-03-16. End: 2005-12-31.

What was the specific scope of 'engineering technical services' provided under this contract?

The provided data identifies the contract's purpose as 'ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES' (PSC R425). While the specific scope is not detailed in the abbreviated data, such services typically encompass a wide range of activities including design, development, testing, analysis, and integration of systems, particularly within the aerospace and defense domains. For the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, this could involve support for missile systems, aircraft, related avionics, or ground support equipment, potentially including research, prototyping, technical documentation, and lifecycle support. A full contract review would be necessary to ascertain the precise deliverables and technical requirements.

How does the $18.9 million contract value compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Army during the 2001-2005 period?

Comparing the $18.9 million contract value requires context regarding the specific type and duration of engineering services. During the 2001-2005 period, the Department of Defense, including the Army, awarded numerous contracts for engineering and technical support. Contracts for specialized R&D, system integration, or long-term sustainment could range from millions to billions of dollars. A contract of $18.9 million for a duration of approximately 4.8 years, awarded under full and open competition with 4 offers, suggests a moderately sized, competitively procured service contract. Without access to a comprehensive database of comparable contracts from that era, it's difficult to definitively benchmark this specific value, but it appears to be a significant, yet not exceptionally large, award for specialized technical support.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION's performance?

The provided abbreviated data does not contain information on the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION's performance under this contract. Typically, such contracts include performance standards related to timeliness, quality of deliverables, technical accuracy, responsiveness, and adherence to project milestones. Performance evaluations are usually documented in contract performance reports, which are not included in this dataset. The contracting officer's final decision and any award fees or penalties would be based on these evaluations.

What is MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION's track record with the U.S. Army or Department of Defense prior to and following this contract?

The provided data indicates that MORGAN RESEARCH CORPORATION, located in Huntsville, AL, was awarded this $18.9 million contract by the Department of the Army. To assess their broader track record, one would need to examine historical contract awards to this entity from the DoD and other federal agencies. Huntsville is a hub for defense contractors, suggesting the company likely has experience in this sector. A comprehensive review of their contract history, including past performance reviews, contract types, and agency relationships, would be necessary to fully understand their track record before and after this specific award.

Were there any significant risks identified or mitigation strategies employed for this contract?

The abbreviated data does not explicitly list identified risks or mitigation strategies for this contract. However, common risks associated with engineering technical services contracts, especially those using labor hours, include scope creep, cost overruns, technical challenges, and contractor performance issues. Given the 'full and open competition' and the award of 'delivery orders' (implied by the structure), it suggests a structured approach. The contracting agency likely had internal risk assessment processes. Potential mitigation could involve detailed SOWs, regular progress reviews, and robust oversight by the contracting officer's representative (COR).

How did the number of bidders (4) influence the final contract price and terms?

With four bidders participating in the full and open competition, there was a reasonable level of market pressure on pricing. This number suggests that the opportunity was attractive enough to elicit multiple competitive proposals. While not an extremely high number of bidders, it is generally sufficient to prevent a single source from dominating the pricing. The final contract price and terms would be a result of the negotiation and evaluation process among these four offers, aiming to achieve the best value for the government, balancing technical merit with cost. A higher number of bidders could potentially drive prices lower, but four offers indicate a competitive scenario.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12601 FAIR LAKES CIR, FAIRFAX, VA, 22033

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

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DAAH0100D0016

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline