DoD's $21.6M contract with Stanley Associates for IT services awarded under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,569,192 ($21.6M)

Contractor: Stanley Associates, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-06-01

End Date: 2009-10-31

Contract Duration: 1,978 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: IT

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, GEORGIA, 30330

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.6 million to STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for IT services, indicating a need for technology support within the Department of the Army. 2. The contract was competed openly, suggesting a potentially competitive pricing environment. 3. A Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type was used, which can incentivize cost control but requires careful oversight. 4. The contract duration of 1978 days (over 5 years) suggests a long-term need for the services provided. 5. The award was made to a single entity, Stanley Associates, Inc., for the entirety of the contract value. 6. The contract was awarded in 2004, with performance concluding in 2009, providing historical context for IT service needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $21.6 million over nearly five years averages to approximately $4.3 million annually. Without specific details on the scope of IT services, it's challenging to benchmark against similar contracts. The CPFF structure means the final cost is tied to actual expenses plus a fixed fee, which can be reasonable if costs are well-managed. However, this structure can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not closely monitored for efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and service offerings for the government. The fact that it was fully competed suggests that the agency sought to maximize value by allowing a broad range of contractors to participate.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at competitive market rates, thereby maximizing the value of government spending.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from IT services essential for its operations. The contract supports the delivery of technology solutions and potentially IT infrastructure management. The geographic impact is likely within the Department of the Army's operational areas, though specific locations are not detailed. Workforce implications include employment for IT professionals and support staff working for Stanley Associates, Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts require diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and the fixed fee is appropriate for the effort.
The long duration of the contract could lead to potential scope creep if not managed effectively.
Lack of specific service details makes it difficult to assess if the pricing reflects current market value for similar IT services.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair bidding process.
The contract was awarded to a single entity, Stanley Associates, Inc., implying they were selected as the best value offeror.
The contract was successfully completed, indicating the contractor met its obligations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) sector, a critical area for modern government operations. The IT services market is vast and highly competitive, encompassing software development, hardware maintenance, network management, and cybersecurity. The $21.6 million value over nearly five years is a moderate-sized contract within this sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific IT services rendered, but this represents a significant investment in technology support for a major government agency.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was false, and there is no mention of small business set-asides. This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses, and larger, established firms were likely the primary participants in the competition. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may have existed but are not detailed in this summary.

Oversight & Accountability

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type necessitates robust oversight mechanisms to monitor costs incurred by the contractor and ensure the fixed fee remains fair and reasonable for the work performed. The Department of the Army would have been responsible for contract administration, including performance reviews and financial audits. Transparency would be enhanced through regular reporting requirements stipulated in the contract. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense IT Modernization Programs
Army Enterprise IT Services
Federal Civilian IT Procurement
IT Services for Defense Agencies

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight.
Long contract duration may present risks if not managed effectively.
Specific service details are not provided, hindering detailed value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.6 million to STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-06-01. End: 2009-10-31.

What specific IT services were provided under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact IT services rendered under this contract. However, given the context of a Department of the Army award, these services could have ranged from network infrastructure management, software development and maintenance, cybersecurity solutions, IT support, to data center operations. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure suggests a scope that might have been difficult to define precisely upfront or involved evolving requirements, common in complex IT projects. Further details would be needed from the contract's statement of work to understand the precise deliverables and technical scope.

How does the $21.6 million total contract value compare to similar IT service contracts awarded by the DoD during that period?

Benchmarking the $21.6 million contract value requires comparing it against similar IT service contracts awarded by the Department of Defense (DoD) between 2004 and 2009. During this era, large-scale IT procurements for defense agencies often ran into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, especially for enterprise-wide solutions or major system upgrades. A $21.6 million contract over nearly five years, averaging around $4.3 million annually, would be considered a mid-tier contract. It's substantial enough to indicate a significant need but not at the scale of major system integrations or large-scale outsourcing deals that could exceed $100 million. The specific nature of the IT services would be crucial for a precise comparison.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for IT services?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the government may end up paying more than necessary if the contractor's costs are not efficiently managed. While the fee is fixed, the 'cost' portion is variable. This structure can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs to justify their fixed fee, especially if oversight is lax. For IT services, risks include potential cost overruns due to unforeseen technical challenges, scope creep, or inefficient project management. The government must maintain strong oversight to scrutinize costs, ensure the fixed fee is appropriate for the effort, and verify that the contractor is performing diligently to control expenses. Without adequate oversight, CPFF contracts can be less cost-effective than fixed-price alternatives.

What was Stanley Associates, Inc.'s track record prior to or during this contract?

Information regarding Stanley Associates, Inc.'s specific track record prior to or during this 2004-2009 contract is not detailed in the provided data. To assess their performance, one would typically look at past performance evaluations on previous government contracts, any awards or commendations received, or any instances of contract disputes or terminations. As this contract was successfully completed, it suggests a baseline level of satisfactory performance. However, a comprehensive assessment would require access to historical contract performance data, such as CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) reports, if available for this period and contractor.

How did the 'full and open competition' impact the pricing and value received by the DoD?

Awarding the contract through 'full and open competition' generally has a positive impact on pricing and value for the DoD. This process allows any qualified vendor to submit a proposal, fostering a competitive environment where multiple companies vie for the contract. Increased competition typically drives down prices as bidders seek to offer the most attractive terms. It also encourages innovation and better service offerings as contractors differentiate themselves. For the DoD, this means a higher likelihood of securing IT services at or near market rates, maximizing the return on investment for taxpayer dollars. The agency benefits from a wider pool of potential solutions and a more rigorous evaluation process to select the best value.

What does the contract duration of 1978 days (over 5 years) imply about the nature of the IT services required?

A contract duration of 1978 days, which is approximately 5 years and 5 months, implies that the IT services procured were intended for long-term, sustained support rather than short-term projects. This duration suggests requirements such as ongoing IT infrastructure management, continuous software maintenance and development, long-term system support, or the provision of stable IT operational services. Such extended periods allow for deeper integration of services, relationship building between the contractor and agency, and potentially greater efficiency through familiarity. However, it also necessitates careful contract management to ensure the services remain relevant and cost-effective throughout the period, and to mitigate risks associated with long-term vendor lock-in or evolving technological landscapes.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Groupe CGI Inc (UEI: 246801237)

Address: 300 N WASHINGTON ST, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DAKF1199D0005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline