DoD's $11.6M JPEO-CBD support contract awarded to Kalman & Company, Inc. for administrative management

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,581,740 ($11.6M)

Contractor: Kalman & Company, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-08-24

End Date: 2008-09-01

Contract Duration: 374 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.0K/day

Competition Type: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: JPEO-CBD SUPPORT.

Place of Performance

Location: QUANTICO, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 22134

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.6 million to KALMAN & COMPANY, INC. for work described as: JPEO-CBD SUPPORT. Key points: 1. Contract awarded as a follow-on to a competed action, suggesting prior market engagement. 2. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates a defined scope and cost structure. 3. The contract duration of 374 days suggests a medium-term engagement for support services. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Navy, this contract supports the JPEO-CBD program. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541611 points to management consulting services. 6. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Kalman & Company, Inc.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging without more detailed service descriptions and comparable contract data. The total award amount of approximately $11.6 million for a period of just over a year suggests a moderate investment. However, without insight into the specific deliverables and the complexity of the administrative management and general management consulting services provided, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. Further analysis would require comparing the cost against similar support contracts within the Department of Defense or for similar program management offices.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was designated as a 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION,' implying that the initial award was competed, but this specific follow-on action may have had limited competition. The presence of '3' in the 'no' field (number of offers) suggests that while it was a follow-on, there were still multiple bidders considered. The level of competition for follow-on actions can vary; if the original competition was robust, this follow-on might still represent a reasonable price. However, limited competition can sometimes lead to less favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A follow-on action with limited competition means taxpayers may not be benefiting from the most aggressive pricing achievable through a fully open and competitive process. While some competition existed, it might not have driven prices down as effectively as a broader solicitation.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD), receiving essential administrative and management support. The services delivered likely enhance the operational efficiency and management of the JPEO-CBD's programs. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense's operational sphere, supporting national defense initiatives. Workforce implications may include the direct employment of consultants from Kalman & Company, Inc., augmenting government personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the administrative management services.
The 'limited' competition for this follow-on action raises questions about potential price optimization for the government.
The contract's focus on administrative management, while necessary, may not directly contribute to cutting-edge technological advancements.

Positive Signals

The contract is a follow-on to a competed action, indicating a degree of market validation and potential for established performance.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded to a specific company, Kalman & Company, Inc., suggesting a focused relationship for specialized support.

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 that augments in-house capabilities. The market for such services is large and competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized support. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other contracts for program management support within large federal agencies, particularly those with complex R&D or acquisition programs like the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb fields) was not a specific set-aside for this contract. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside requirement. The prime contractor, Kalman & Company, Inc., is responsible for its own subcontracting decisions, which are not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program management office within the Department of the Navy and the JPEO-CBD. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's statement of work and performance standards. Transparency is facilitated by contract award databases, but detailed performance reviews and Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on specific findings or allegations of mismanagement or fraud.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Administrative Support Contracts
JPEO-CBD Program Support
Management and Consulting Services for Federal Agencies
Follow-on Contract Actions

Risk Flags

Limited competition on follow-on action
Lack of detailed performance metrics
Potential for suboptimal price discovery

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.6 million to KALMAN & COMPANY, INC.. JPEO-CBD SUPPORT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KALMAN & COMPANY, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-08-24. End: 2008-09-01.

What is the track record of Kalman & Company, Inc. in performing similar administrative management and general management consulting services for the Department of Defense?

Assessing Kalman & Company, Inc.'s track record requires a deeper dive into their contract history beyond this single award. While this contract indicates they were selected for administrative management support for the JPEO-CBD, it doesn't reveal the full scope of their experience. A comprehensive review would involve examining past performance evaluations on other DoD contracts, the types of services they've provided, their success in meeting deadlines and budget constraints, and any past performance issues or commendations. Without this broader context, it's difficult to definitively gauge their reliability and expertise for this specific type of work.

How does the cost of this contract compare to similar administrative support contracts within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

Direct cost comparison is challenging without detailed service breakdowns and market data for comparable contracts. The total award of approximately $11.6 million over roughly 13 months for administrative and management consulting services provides a general scale. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify contracts with similar scopes of work, duration, and complexity, ideally within the DoD or for comparable program management offices. Factors like the specific expertise required, the number of personnel involved, and the criticality of the JPEO-CBD's mission would influence pricing. A thorough analysis would involve identifying benchmarks for 'per-person-per-month' costs or 'percentage of program value' for administrative support.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of Kalman & Company, Inc. under this contract, and how were they met?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) established for this contract. Typically, administrative management and general management consulting contracts include metrics related to efficiency, timeliness of support, accuracy of information provided, adherence to process, and client satisfaction. Without access to the contract's statement of work and any associated performance management plans, it is impossible to determine the specific KPIs or assess whether Kalman & Company, Inc. met them. This information would be crucial for a complete evaluation of the contract's effectiveness and value.

What is the historical spending pattern for administrative and management support services for the JPEO-CBD program, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

To understand the historical spending for JPEO-CBD administrative and management support, one would need to analyze contract awards over several fiscal years. This specific contract, valued at approximately $11.6 million over 13 months, represents a significant, but not necessarily anomalous, investment. Analyzing past contracts would reveal whether spending in this area has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing, and whether this award is in line with previous expenditures for similar services. It would also help identify if there have been shifts in contracting strategies or vendor selections over time for the JPEO-CBD.

What is the potential risk associated with awarding a follow-on contract with limited competition to Kalman & Company, Inc. for JPEO-CBD support?

The primary risk associated with a follow-on contract that had limited competition is the potential for reduced price competition, which could lead to the government paying more than necessary. While the initial action was competed, the follow-on may have benefited from incumbency advantage or specific knowledge that limited the pool of viable bidders. This could reduce the incentive for the contractor to offer the most competitive pricing. Additionally, if the initial competition was not sufficiently robust, there's a risk that the government may not have secured the best possible value from the outset. Oversight and careful negotiation are key to mitigating these risks.

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: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 6350 CENTER DRIVE, NORFOLK, VA, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,581,740

Exercised Options: $11,581,740

Current Obligation: $11,581,740

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: M6785403A5158

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline