DoD's $16.6M JSOC Implementation contract with Apptis, Inc. shows mixed value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,589,681 ($16.6M)

Contractor: Apptis, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-10

End Date: 2008-05-09

Contract Duration: 365 days

Daily Burn Rate: $45.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Official Description: JSOC IMPLEMENTATION

Place of Performance

Location: FALLS CHURCH, FALLS CHURCH CITY County, VIRGINIA, 22040

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.6 million to APPTIS, INC. for work described as: JSOC IMPLEMENTATION Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair, with a significant portion of the contract value potentially tied to labor hours. 2. Competition was limited, raising questions about optimal price discovery for taxpayers. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a focus on timely delivery of IT services. 4. Performance context suggests a need for ongoing monitoring of service quality and cost-effectiveness. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader IT services landscape for defense agencies. 6. The contract's duration and delivery order structure suggest a phased approach to implementation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $16.6 million over 365 days, awarded as a delivery order, suggests a moderate investment. Benchmarking against similar IT implementation contracts within the Department of Defense is crucial to fully assess value. Given the Time and Materials pricing structure, a significant portion of the cost is likely driven by labor, making detailed oversight of hours and rates essential for ensuring cost-effectiveness. Without specific performance metrics or comparable contract data, a definitive value assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. This suggests a potentially limited number of bidders participated. The level of competition, while not sole-source, may not have achieved the price discovery benefits of a truly open competition, potentially leading to higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition can mean taxpayers may not have received the most competitive pricing available in the market. This procurement approach warrants scrutiny to ensure fair market value was obtained.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) units receiving enhanced IT capabilities. Services delivered include the implementation of IT systems critical for operational support. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense's operational areas. Workforce implications include the potential need for specialized IT personnel to manage and operate the new systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing structure.
Limited competition may have resulted in suboptimal pricing.
Ensuring effective integration of new IT systems with existing infrastructure.

Positive Signals

Awarded to a single contractor, potentially allowing for focused expertise.
Delivery order structure allows for phased implementation and management of scope.
Contract duration provides a defined period for service delivery and performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the IT services sector, specifically focusing on system implementation for a defense agency. The market for defense IT services is substantial, characterized by complex requirements and significant government spending. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other IT implementation contracts awarded by DISA or similar defense organizations, considering factors like contract type, duration, and scope of work.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities, which are not detailed here. The absence of set-asides suggests that larger, established firms were likely the primary focus of this competition.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms would typically involve contract officers, program managers, and potentially the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures are tied to the performance requirements outlined in the contract and the delivery order. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) IT Services
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) Technology Modernization
Department of Defense IT Procurement
Wired Telecommunications Carriers Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to T&M pricing.
Limited competition may impact price competitiveness.
Need for robust oversight of labor hours and material costs.
Complexity of IT implementation for specialized command.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.6 million to APPTIS, INC.. JSOC IMPLEMENTATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is APPTIS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Information Systems Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-10. End: 2008-05-09.

What was the specific nature of the 'JSOC Implementation' and what IT systems were involved?

The 'JSOC Implementation' likely refers to the deployment and integration of specific Information Technology (IT) systems and infrastructure for the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). While the provided data does not detail the exact systems, such implementations often involve network upgrades, software deployment, cybersecurity enhancements, and the integration of communication platforms to support JSOC's unique and sensitive operational requirements. These systems are critical for command and control, intelligence sharing, and operational planning within special operations forces. The contract's focus on 'Wired Telecommunications Carriers' (NAICS 517110) suggests a significant component involved the physical infrastructure for data transmission, such as fiber optics, cabling, and related network hardware.

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure impact the overall value and risk for this contract?

The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, indicated by 'pt': 'TIME AND MATERIALS', means the government pays for the direct labor hours at specified hourly rates and the actual cost of materials. This structure offers flexibility, allowing for adjustments in scope and effort as the project evolves. However, it also presents a higher risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently. For this $16.6 million contract, the government's ability to control costs heavily relies on robust oversight of labor hours, verification of material costs, and effective management of the contractor's performance. Without strict controls and detailed reporting, T&M contracts can become less cost-effective compared to fixed-price arrangements, especially for projects with well-defined scopes.

What does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' (CT) designation imply about the bidding process?

The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' (CT) indicates a complex procurement approach. It suggests that the initial solicitation was intended to be fully open, but specific sources were later excluded from consideration. This exclusion could be due to various reasons, such as national security concerns, specific technical requirements that only certain vendors could meet, or previous performance issues. While it aims for broader competition than a sole-source award, the exclusion of sources inherently limits the pool of potential bidders. This can impact the level of competition achieved and potentially influence the final pricing, as fewer vendors are vying for the contract compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded as a 'DELIVERY ORDER' (AW) with a 365-day duration?

The contract being awarded as a 'DELIVERY ORDER' (AW) implies that it is likely a task order issued under a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a basic ordering agreement. This structure allows the government to procure specific goods or services as needed. The 365-day duration (dur: 365) indicates the period of performance for this particular delivery order. This phased approach, common in IT projects, allows for flexibility in project execution and budget management. It suggests that the $16.6 million value is allocated for services rendered over approximately one year, potentially as part of a larger, multi-year program.

How does the contractor 'APPTIS, INC.' (CO) and its past performance (if known) influence the assessment of this contract's success?

The contractor, Apptis, Inc., plays a pivotal role in the successful execution of this JSOC Implementation contract. While the provided data does not include specific past performance ratings or details about Apptis, Inc.'s track record with the DoD or similar agencies, a thorough analysis would require examining their history. Key considerations would include their performance on previous government contracts, particularly those involving IT implementation and defense clients. Factors like on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of services, and responsiveness to issues are critical. A strong performance history would increase confidence in the current contract's successful completion, whereas a history of issues might raise concerns about potential risks and the overall value proposition.

What are the potential implications of the contract's base year value (BR) of $45,451 compared to the total award value?

The Base Year value (BR) of $45,451 appears significantly lower than the total award value of $16,589,681.18. This discrepancy suggests that the $45,451 likely represents the minimum guaranteed amount or the value of initial services/options under the contract, while the total award value encompasses the full potential value, including all options and anticipated work over the contract's duration. This structure is common for contracts where the full scope of work is not precisely known at the outset or where flexibility is required. It implies that the majority of the contract's value is tied to future taskings or performance beyond the initial base period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Wired and Wireless Telecommunications (except Satellite) › Wired Telecommunications Carriers

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: AECOM Global II, LLC (UEI: 043271568)

Address: 4800 WESTFIELDS BLVD STE 1, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,589,681

Exercised Options: $16,589,681

Current Obligation: $16,589,681

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DCA20002D5000

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline