DoD's $66.6M contract for engineering services awarded to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC shows strong competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $66,602,888 ($66.6M)

Contractor: KBR Wyle Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-09-12

End Date: 2010-12-11

Contract Duration: 1,916 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200512!005308!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0024 !A!N! !Y!0012 ! !20050912!20051231!098856339!098856339!098856339!N!CAS, INC !100 QUALITY CIRCLE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35806!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000003865958!N!N!000000000000!R408!PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541330!E! !7! ! ! ! ! !20200930!C! ! !N!Z!A!N!J!2!003! ! !Z!N!Z! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !D!D!A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $66.6 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC for work described as: 200512!005308!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0024 !A!N! !Y!0012 ! !20050912!20051231!098856339!098856339!098856339!N!CAS, INC !100 QUALITY CIRCLE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35806!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADI… Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process. 2. The contract value of $66.6M over approximately 5 years suggests a significant investment in engineering support. 3. The primary contractor, KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, has a substantial presence in the defense sector. 4. The contract's duration of over 5 years implies a long-term need for these engineering services. 5. The Public Law 114-264 (FY17 NDAA) compliance is noted, suggesting adherence to specific legislative requirements. 6. The contract is for engineering services, a critical component of defense readiness and development.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $66.6 million for engineering services over approximately 5 years appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering support contracts within the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. However, the fact that it was awarded under full and open competition suggests that pricing was likely competitive. The firm fixed-price contract type also provides cost certainty for the government.

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 there were 3 bids received, suggesting a healthy level of competition for this significant engineering services contract. This competitive environment is generally favorable for price discovery and ensures the government receives offers from multiple qualified vendors.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers as it likely drove down prices through competitive bidding, ensuring the government obtained services at a fair market value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Department of Defense, specifically the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command, which will receive essential engineering program management and support services. The services delivered will encompass program management and support, crucial for the development, maintenance, and operational readiness of aviation and missile systems. The geographic impact is primarily within Alabama, where the contractor's facilities are located (Huntsville), but the services support national defense objectives. The contract supports a workforce skilled in engineering, program management, and technical support, contributing to the specialized labor market within the defense industry.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs, despite the firm fixed-price structure.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical engineering support could pose a risk if performance issues arise.
The long duration of the contract may lead to vendor lock-in, potentially limiting future flexibility.
Ensuring continued innovation and efficiency from the contractor over the contract's lifespan requires ongoing performance monitoring.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive marketplace and likely fair pricing.
Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty and transfers risk to the contractor.
The contractor, KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, is an established entity with experience in defense contracting.
The contract duration suggests a stable, long-term need for these critical engineering services.
The contract is for essential engineering support, vital for national defense capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS code 541330), a significant segment of the professional, scientific, and technical services industry. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by the continuous need for research, development, and sustainment of complex military systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale engineering support contracts awarded by the Department of Defense and other federal agencies for similar types of services.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a specific set-aside. However, the prime contractor, KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill portions of the contract requirements, depending on their internal subcontracting plans and the nature of the services needed. The impact on the small business ecosystem would be indirect, contingent on the prime contractor's subcontracting practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily be conducted by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, which stipulate deliverables and performance standards. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS-NG. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Defense Engineering Services
Program Management Support
Aviation Systems Support
Missile Systems Support
Department of Defense Contracts
Federal Procurement Data

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Contractor Performance Risk
Scope Creep Potential
Cybersecurity Vulnerability

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $66.6 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC. 200512!005308!2100!W31P4Q!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W31P4Q05A0024 !A!N! !Y!0012 ! !20050912!20051231!098856339!098856339!098856339!N!CAS, INC !100 QUALITY CIRCLE !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35806!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000003865958!N!N!000000000000!R408!PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541330!E! !7! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KBR WYLE SERVICES, 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 $66.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-12. End: 2010-12-11.

What is the track record of KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC with the Department of Defense?

KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, and its predecessor entities, have a long and extensive history of contracting with the Department of Defense. They are a major provider of a wide range of services, including engineering, logistics, base operations support, and technical services. Their involvement spans numerous major defense programs and platforms. Historical data indicates a significant volume of contract awards, suggesting a strong established relationship and proven capability in supporting military operations and development. While specific performance metrics for individual contracts are not detailed here, their continued success in winning large, competitive contracts points to a generally positive track record in meeting DoD requirements.

How does the value of this contract compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by the DoD?

The contract value of $66.6 million over approximately 5 years places it as a substantial, but not exceptionally large, engineering services contract within the DoD. Many large-scale engineering support contracts for major weapon systems or base operations can reach hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. However, for specialized program management and support services for specific commands like the Aviation and Missile Command, this value is commensurate with significant, long-term support requirements. Benchmarking against contracts with similar NAICS codes (541330) and service types (program management/support) awarded to similar-sized contractors would provide a more precise comparison. The competitive nature of its award suggests the pricing is likely aligned with market rates for such services.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract for the government?

The primary risks for the government associated with this contract include potential performance deficiencies by the contractor, leading to delays or subpar support for critical aviation and missile programs. Despite the firm fixed-price structure, there's a risk of scope creep if requirements are not tightly managed, potentially leading to cost increases or contract modifications. Another risk is over-reliance on a single contractor for extended periods, which could reduce flexibility and bargaining power in the future. Ensuring the contractor maintains adequate staffing levels with the necessary expertise throughout the contract duration is also a consideration. Finally, ensuring the contractor's cybersecurity practices are robust is crucial, given the sensitive nature of defense programs.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in managing costs for this type of service?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for managing costs when the scope of work is well-defined and the risks are understood. For engineering services like program management and support, where requirements can sometimes evolve, FFP provides cost certainty for the government by establishing a ceiling price. It incentivizes the contractor to control costs and improve efficiency to maximize profit. However, it also places more risk on the contractor. If unforeseen technical challenges or scope changes arise that were not anticipated, the contractor may incur losses unless contract modifications are negotiated. Effective government oversight is still crucial to ensure the contractor meets all requirements within the agreed-upon price.

What is the historical spending trend for engineering services by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command?

Historical spending data for engineering services by the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) would typically show consistent investment in these areas due to the nature of their mission. AMCOM is responsible for the life cycle management of aviation and missile systems, which inherently requires significant engineering expertise for research, development, sustainment, and modernization. Spending trends would likely reflect the pace of technological advancements, modernization programs, and operational demands placed on these systems. Periods of increased spending might correlate with major system upgrades or new platform development, while steady spending would indicate ongoing sustainment and operational support needs. Analyzing multi-year spending patterns would reveal the scale and consistency of their reliance on external engineering support.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: KBR, Inc. (UEI: 784072626)

Address: 100 QUALITY CIR NW, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35806

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $66,602,888

Exercised Options: $66,602,888

Current Obligation: $66,602,888

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W31P4Q05A0024

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline