DoD's $55.7M contract with CAS, Inc. for aviation and missile program support shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $55,723,189 ($55.7M)

Contractor: KBR Wyle Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-07-13

End Date: 2006-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,905 days

Daily Burn Rate: $29.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200110!002595!2100!AH01 !USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!DAAH0100D0021 !A!N!*!N!0031 !20010713!20011231!098856339!098856339!098856339!N!CAS, INC !7067 OLD MADISON PIKE, SUI!HUNTSVILLE !AL!35806!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000004609477!N!N!000000000000!R408!PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !336414!*!*!5!B!M! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!U!2!001!B! !C!N!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !Z! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35806, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $55.7 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC for work described as: 200110!002595!2100!AH01 !USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!DAAH0100D0021 !A!N!*!N!0031 !20010713!20011231!098856339!098856339!098856339!N!CAS, INC !7067 OLD MADISON PIKE, SUI!HUNTSVILLE !AL!35806!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADIS… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for program management and support services, indicating a need for specialized expertise. 2. The contract's duration of 1905 days suggests a long-term requirement for these services. 3. Awarded by the Department of the Army, highlighting its role in defense readiness. 4. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. 5. The total value of $55.7 million warrants scrutiny for cost-effectiveness and comparison with similar services. 6. The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $55.7 million for program management and support services over approximately five years requires careful benchmarking. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, it's challenging to definitively assess value for money. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while common for complex services, carries inherent risks of cost escalation if not rigorously overseen. Comparing this to similar contracts for aviation and missile program support would be crucial to determine if the pricing is competitive and reflects fair market value.

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 and evaluated. This competitive process is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers. The number of bidders and the specific evaluation criteria would provide further insight into the strength of the competition. A robust competition typically drives down costs and improves the quality of services offered.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of securing services at a fair market price, reducing the risk of overpayment and promoting efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and potentially other branches of the U.S. military requiring aviation and missile program management expertise. Services delivered include program management and support, crucial for the development, sustainment, and operational readiness of critical defense systems. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the contracting agency (Department of the Army) and the contractor's operational base, with potential for broader national security implications. Workforce implications include the employment of skilled professionals in program management, engineering, and technical support roles within the defense sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can incentivize contractor to increase costs to maximize profit.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the true value for money.
The significant contract value necessitates robust oversight to prevent potential cost overruns and ensure efficient resource allocation.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process that should yield fair pricing.
The contract supports critical aviation and missile programs, indicating alignment with national defense priorities.
The contractor, CAS, Inc., has a history of performing government contracts, suggesting some level of established capability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense sector, specifically focusing on program management and support services for aviation and missile systems. This is a critical area for the Department of Defense, requiring specialized expertise to manage complex, high-value programs. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms offering program management, systems engineering, and technical assistance. Benchmarking this contract's value against other similar support service contracts within the DoD would be essential for a comprehensive assessment of its cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. The prime contractor is CAS, Inc. Further investigation would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities exist for small businesses and what their potential value might be within the overall contract performance. The absence of explicit set-asides suggests the primary focus was on securing the best overall offer through full and open competition.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined by the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards, reporting requirements, and payment schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed operational oversight and Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would depend on the specific nature of the services and any identified performance issues or fraud concerns.

Related Government Programs

Aviation Systems Support
Missile Defense Programs
Program Management Services
Defense Contract Management
Department of the Army Procurement

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Need for robust performance monitoring to ensure value for money.
Complexity of aviation and missile systems requires specialized expertise.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $55.7 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC. 200110!002595!2100!AH01 !USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!DAAH0100D0021 !A!N!*!N!0031 !20010713!20011231!098856339!098856339!098856339!N!CAS, INC !7067 OLD MADISON PIKE, SUI!HUNTSVILLE !AL!35806!37000!089!01!HUNTSVILLE !MADISON !ALABAMA !+000004609477!N!N!000000000000!R408!PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !336414!*!*!5!B!M! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A!

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 $55.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-07-13. End: 2006-09-30.

What is the track record of CAS, Inc. in performing similar program management and support services for the Department of Defense?

CAS, Inc. has a history of performing various services for the U.S. government, including contracts related to program management, technical support, and logistics. While specific details on their performance for aviation and missile programs require deeper analysis of contract performance reports and past performance evaluations, their presence as a prime contractor suggests they possess the necessary qualifications and experience. Examining their past performance ratings, any contract disputes, or awards for similar work would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and effectiveness in this domain. It's important to note that performance can vary across different contracts and agencies.

How does the $55.7 million contract value compare to similar program management support contracts for aviation and missile systems within the DoD?

Benchmarking this $55.7 million contract requires access to a database of comparable contracts, considering factors like contract duration, scope of work, and specific services provided. Contracts for program management and support services in the defense sector can vary widely in value depending on the complexity and criticality of the systems involved. For instance, support for major weapon systems or advanced research and development programs might command higher values. A preliminary comparison suggests that $55.7 million over approximately five years is within a reasonable range for specialized program support, but a detailed analysis comparing specific deliverables, labor categories, and overhead rates would be necessary to confirm if it represents good value for money.

What are the primary risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this program, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs, as their profit is fixed regardless of the actual costs incurred (within contract limits). This can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently. Mitigation strategies employed by the government typically include robust oversight, detailed cost monitoring, regular audits, and clearly defined performance metrics. The contracting officer must ensure that the 'fixed fee' is appropriate for the level of risk and effort involved, and that the contractor is held accountable for meeting performance objectives within the agreed-upon cost ceiling. Strong program management and financial controls are essential to manage CPFF contracts effectively.

What is the expected impact of this contract on the readiness and modernization of U.S. Army aviation and missile systems?

This contract is expected to have a positive impact on the readiness and modernization of U.S. Army aviation and missile systems by providing essential program management and support services. These services are crucial for ensuring that complex defense programs are executed efficiently, on schedule, and within budget. Effective program management can streamline acquisition processes, improve system sustainment, and facilitate the integration of new technologies. By supporting these critical functions, the contract contributes to maintaining the technological superiority and operational effectiveness of the Army's aviation and missile capabilities, thereby enhancing overall defense readiness.

How has spending on aviation and missile program management support services by the Department of the Army trended over the past five years?

Analyzing historical spending trends for aviation and missile program management support services by the Department of the Army requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data. Generally, spending in this category tends to fluctuate based on the lifecycle of major defense programs, modernization initiatives, and budgetary allocations. Periods of significant system development or upgrades often see increased spending, while periods focused on sustainment might see more stable or slightly decreased levels. Without specific data for this contract category, it's difficult to provide precise figures, but it's reasonable to assume that the Army consistently invests substantial resources in program management to ensure the successful execution of its complex aviation and missile portfolios.

What are the potential implications of awarding this contract through full and open competition versus a sole-source or limited competition approach?

Awarding this contract through full and open competition offers several advantages. It maximizes the pool of potential offerors, increasing the likelihood of receiving innovative solutions and competitive pricing. This process generally leads to better value for taxpayers by fostering a robust marketplace where contractors vie for the business based on merit and cost-effectiveness. In contrast, a sole-source or limited competition approach might be justified under specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities, urgent needs), but it typically results in less price competition and potentially higher costs. Therefore, the full and open competition approach for this significant contract suggests a strategic effort to ensure optimal use of government funds.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Court Square Capital Partners, L.P. (UEI: 610537735)

Address: 7067 OLD MADISON PIKE, SUI, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35806

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DAAH0100D0021

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline