DoD's $28.2M engineering services contract awarded to MACAULAY-BROWN, INC. shows a 5-year duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,237,688 ($28.2M)

Contractor: HII Mission Technologies Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-28

End Date: 2012-01-19

Contract Duration: 1,939 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200612!000890!5700!FA7037!HQ AIA/LGC !F4162103D6600 !A!N! !Y!0021 ! !20060928!20070928!096500483!096500483!096500483!N!MACAULAY-BROWN, INC !4021 EXECUTIVE DR !DAYTON !OH!45430!40036!029!48!LACKLAND AFB !BEXAR !TEXAS !+000005057545!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !541330!E! !5!B!M! !A! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!N!U!2!005!B! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!C!Y! ! ! !A!C!A!A!000!A!D!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: DAYTON, GREENE County, OHIO, 45430

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.2 million to HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP for work described as: 200612!000890!5700!FA7037!HQ AIA/LGC !F4162103D6600 !A!N! !Y!0021 ! !20060928!20070928!096500483!096500483!096500483!N!MACAULAY-BROWN, INC !4021 EXECUTIVE DR !DAYTON !OH!45430!40036!029!48!LACKLAND AFB !BEXA… Key points: 1. The contract's value of $28.2M over 5 years suggests a moderate annual spend of approximately $5.6M. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad solicitation for potential bidders. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 4. The primary service is Engineering Technical Services, a critical support function for defense operations. 5. The contractor, MACAULAY-BROWN, INC., has a track record with this type of service, as indicated by the contract's history. 6. The contract was awarded in 2006 and extended through 2012, showing a long-term need for these services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $28.2M over approximately 5 years averages to about $5.6M annually. Without specific benchmarks for similar engineering technical services contracts within the Department of Defense, it's challenging to definitively assess value for money. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type carries inherent risks of cost escalation if not rigorously managed. The duration suggests a sustained need, but the pricing structure warrants close monitoring to ensure efficiency and prevent unnecessary expenditures.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple companies were likely solicited and had the opportunity to bid. The presence of 5 bids indicates a reasonable level of competition for these engineering services. This competitive process is generally expected to drive more favorable pricing and service terms for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a more competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and innovation, ultimately stretching federal dollars further.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, which receives essential engineering technical services to support its operations. Services delivered include engineering and technical support, crucial for maintaining and advancing defense capabilities. The contract is geographically tied to Lackland AFB in Texas, indicating a specific operational or support base. The contract likely supports a workforce of engineers and technical specialists, contributing to employment in the defense sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize contractor to increase costs to maximize profit, requiring robust oversight.
The extended duration of the contract (original award 2006, final completion 2012) may indicate a lack of agile procurement or evolving needs.
The raw dollar amount, while significant, needs context against specific deliverables and performance metrics to fully assess value.
Lack of specific details on the 'services' provided beyond 'engineering technical services' makes it difficult to benchmark performance.
The contract was awarded to MACAULAY-BROWN, INC., whose specific performance history on this contract requires further investigation.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process that should yield better value.
The contract has a defined period of performance, allowing for periodic re-evaluation and potential recompete.
The contract specifies a fixed fee component, which provides some level of cost predictability for the government.
The existence of multiple bids (5) indicates market interest and potential for a competitive landscape.
The contract is for engineering services, a critical area that supports national defense objectives.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS code 541330), which is a significant part of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This industry is characterized by specialized expertise and often supports government agencies with complex technical requirements. Spending in this sector is driven by defense needs, infrastructure projects, and research and development. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale engineering support contracts within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included a small business set-aside. The prime contractor, MACAULAY-BROWN, INC., is not explicitly identified as a small business. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any subcontracting opportunities were directed towards small businesses as part of this award, which is a common practice in larger federal contracts to promote small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the awarding agency (Department of Defense) and its contracting officers, potentially with involvement from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures would be defined in the contract terms and conditions, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS-NG, where basic award information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Engineering Services
Technical Support Services
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
Department of Defense Procurement
Air Force Base Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type requires careful monitoring to prevent cost overruns.
Extended contract duration may warrant review for opportunities for more agile procurement methods.
Lack of detailed service description hinders in-depth performance and value assessment.
Contractor performance history on this specific contract is not detailed in the provided data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.2 million to HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. 200612!000890!5700!FA7037!HQ AIA/LGC !F4162103D6600 !A!N! !Y!0021 ! !20060928!20070928!096500483!096500483!096500483!N!MACAULAY-BROWN, INC !4021 EXECUTIVE DR !DAYTON !OH!45430!40036!029!48!LACKLAND AFB !BEXAR !TEXAS !+000005057545!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !541330!E! !5!B!M! !A! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-28. End: 2012-01-19.

What specific engineering technical services were provided under this contract, and how did they contribute to the Air Force's mission at Lackland AFB?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES' under NAICS code 541330. While the specific nature of these services isn't detailed, they likely encompassed a range of activities such as systems engineering, technical analysis, design support, testing, and program management assistance for various Air Force systems or infrastructure at Lackland AFB. These services are critical for ensuring the operational readiness, modernization, and effective functioning of military assets and support systems. Without more granular information on the Statement of Work (SOW), it's difficult to pinpoint exact contributions, but generally, such services enable the Air Force to maintain complex technologies, develop new capabilities, and manage its extensive operational footprint.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure of this contract potentially impact cost control and contractor performance?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. While the fixed fee provides some incentive for the contractor to control costs (as their profit is not directly tied to the total cost), it also carries risks. If the initial cost estimates are inaccurate or if unforeseen issues arise, the total contract cost can escalate significantly, with the government bearing the brunt of these increases. The fixed fee itself remains constant, meaning the contractor's profit margin percentage decreases as costs rise. Effective oversight by the government is crucial in a CPFF contract to scrutinize all incurred costs, ensure they are reasonable and allocable, and prevent potential cost inflation. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset or involves a high degree of uncertainty.

What was the historical spending trend for engineering technical services at Lackland AFB or within the relevant Air Force command prior to and during this contract period?

Analyzing historical spending trends for engineering technical services at Lackland AFB or within the relevant Air Force command prior to and during the 2006-2012 period would provide crucial context for this $28.2M contract. Without access to specific historical procurement data for that command or base, it's impossible to provide exact figures. However, generally, defense spending on technical services tends to fluctuate based on geopolitical events, modernization programs, and budget allocations. If spending in this category was increasing leading up to 2006, it might suggest a growing need or a shift towards outsourcing such services. Conversely, a stable or decreasing trend might raise questions about the necessity or scale of this particular award. Understanding these patterns helps assess whether this contract represented a typical investment or an anomaly.

Were there any performance issues or contract modifications associated with MACAULAY-BROWN, INC.'s performance on this specific contract?

The provided data does not contain specific details regarding performance issues or modifications for this contract awarded to MACAULAY-BROWN, INC. Contract modifications (e.g., change orders, extensions, or adjustments to value) are common in long-term contracts, especially those with a CPFF structure, to accommodate evolving requirements or unforeseen circumstances. Performance issues would typically be documented in contract performance reports, award fee evaluations (if applicable), or through formal corrective action requests. To ascertain the presence of such issues or modifications, one would need to consult the contract file, performance reviews, or modification logs associated with this specific award, which are not included in the summary data.

How does the $28.2M total value compare to other engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense during the same period (2006-2012)?

Comparing the $28.2M total value of this contract to other engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense (DoD) between 2006 and 2012 requires access to comprehensive federal procurement databases. However, as a general observation, $28.2M over approximately five years is a substantial but not exceptionally large sum for a DoD engineering services contract. The DoD procures billions of dollars worth of services annually, including extensive engineering support for major weapon systems, research and development, and infrastructure. Contracts for large-scale defense programs or complex system development could easily reach hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Therefore, this contract appears to be of moderate to significant size within the broader context of DoD spending on engineering support, likely serving a specific, albeit important, set of requirements at Lackland AFB.

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: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4021 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, DAYTON, OH, 10

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: F4162103D6600

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline