SAIC awarded $53M for Battlefield Systems Sub Task 3, a 2-year engineering services contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $53,055,959 ($53.1M)

Contractor: Science Applications International Corporation

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2020-05-01

End Date: 2022-11-30

Contract Duration: 943 days

Daily Burn Rate: $56.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: BATTLEFIELD SYSTEMS SUB TASK 3

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $53.1 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for work described as: BATTLEFIELD SYSTEMS SUB TASK 3 Key points: 1. Contract value of $53M over two years suggests a significant investment in specialized engineering support. 2. The contract was awarded via full and open competition, indicating a broad market search. 3. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure requires careful monitoring of costs to ensure value. 4. Performance is located in Alabama, potentially impacting local workforce and economic development. 5. The contract duration of 943 days (approx. 2.6 years) provides a stable period for service delivery. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to engineering services, a critical sector for defense and technology.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $53 million over approximately two years for engineering services is substantial. Benchmarking against similar 'Battlefield Systems' or specialized engineering support contracts is difficult without more specific service details. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, while common for complex or evolving requirements, can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently. The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the contractor, but the government bears the risk of allowable costs exceeding projections. Further analysis of the specific deliverables and the contractor's historical performance on similar tasks would be needed for a more definitive value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that the General Services Administration (GSA) sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of two bidders indicates a degree of competition, though the exact number of proposals received and their relative strengths are not detailed. Full and open competition generally promotes price discovery and allows the government to select the best value solution from a wide pool of potential contractors. However, the effectiveness of this competition in driving down costs depends on the specific requirements and the market's responsiveness.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the potential for competitive pricing and the assurance that the government explored a wide range of options. This process aims to secure the most advantageous terms and conditions for the government, thereby optimizing the use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military or defense organizations requiring specialized battlefield systems engineering support. Services delivered include engineering expertise crucial for the development, integration, or sustainment of complex systems. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alabama, where the contract performance is scheduled. Workforce implications may include the creation or sustainment of skilled engineering jobs in the specified region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type introduces potential for cost escalation if not closely managed.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may not have fully leveraged market dynamics to achieve the lowest possible price.
Specific details on performance metrics and deliverables are not provided, making it difficult to assess effectiveness.
The nature of 'Battlefield Systems' can involve evolving requirements, increasing the risk of scope creep and cost overruns.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified contractors.
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) is a large, established government contractor with significant experience.
The contract duration of over two years provides stability for service delivery and planning.
The contract supports critical engineering services, likely contributing to national security or technological advancement.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a vital component of the defense industrial base. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by the continuous need for modernization, research, development, and sustainment of military platforms and systems. Companies like Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) are key players in this sector, offering specialized expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific sub-domain of battlefield systems, but overall federal spending on engineering and research services runs into billions annually.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss=false, sb=false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or benefits specifically for small businesses arising from a set-aside provision. The primary contractor, Science Applications International Corporation, is a large business. Any subcontracting opportunities would be at the discretion of SAIC and would depend on their internal capabilities and the specific needs of the contract's performance.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Federal Acquisition Service. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, rigorous oversight of allowable costs is crucial. The contract's performance metrics and deliverables would be monitored to ensure compliance and effectiveness. While specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction isn't detailed, the GSA IG typically oversees contracts managed by the agency. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Defense Engineering Services
Battlefield Technology Development
Systems Integration Contracts
Federal IT and Engineering Support
General Services Administration Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type requires diligent cost monitoring.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may impact price optimization.
Potential for scope creep in complex 'Battlefield Systems' projects.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $53.1 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. BATTLEFIELD SYSTEMS SUB TASK 3

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $53.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-05-01. End: 2022-11-30.

What is the track record of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) on similar Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts with the federal government?

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has a extensive history of performing on Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts across various federal agencies, particularly within the Department of Defense and intelligence communities. CPFF contracts are common for SAIC due to the complex, research-intensive, and often evolving nature of the services they provide, such as systems engineering, integration, and advanced technology development. While specific performance data for every CPFF contract is not publicly available, SAIC's consistent awards and long-standing relationships with government clients suggest a generally positive track record. However, like any large contractor, there may be instances of cost overruns or performance issues on specific contracts that require close monitoring by the contracting agency. A detailed review of SAIC's past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) for similar CPFF contracts would provide a more granular understanding of their reliability and value.

How does the per-unit cost or pricing structure of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar engineering services?

Determining a precise per-unit cost benchmark for this 'Battlefield Systems Sub Task 3' contract is challenging without detailed information on the specific services rendered and the associated labor categories, hours, and overhead rates. The contract utilizes a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, where the government reimburses allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing the contractor's profit. Benchmarking CPFF contracts is inherently complex because costs can vary significantly based on project scope, complexity, and unforeseen challenges. However, the total contract value of approximately $53 million over roughly two years suggests an average annual value of around $26.5 million. For specialized engineering services in the defense sector, this annual value is within a common range for significant projects. To establish a more accurate benchmark, one would need to compare the contractor's proposed labor rates, indirect cost rates, and the fixed fee against similar services procured by agencies like the Department of Defense or GSA, considering factors like security clearances, required expertise, and geographic location.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

The primary risks associated with this contract include potential cost overruns due to the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, scope creep given the nature of 'Battlefield Systems,' and potential performance issues if the contractor's expertise is misaligned with the specific technical requirements. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust government oversight of incurred costs, detailed contract line item management, and clear definition and management of the Statement of Work (SOW). The fixed fee component incentivizes the contractor to control costs to some extent, as their profit is capped. The limited competition (two bidders) also presents a risk of suboptimal pricing or solution selection. Mitigation here relies on the thoroughness of the government's evaluation criteria and negotiation process. Furthermore, SAIC's established presence and experience in defense contracting can be seen as a mitigating factor against performance risk, assuming their past performance is satisfactory.

How effective is the current competition level (2 bidders) in ensuring optimal value for taxpayers?

A competition level of two bidders represents a moderate level of competition, which is generally better than a sole-source award but may not be as effective as a larger pool of bidders in driving down prices and fostering innovation. While two bidders ensure some level of comparison and price discovery, it limits the government's options and bargaining power compared to a scenario with, for example, five or more competitive proposals. The effectiveness in ensuring optimal value for taxpayers depends heavily on the government's evaluation process, the specific requirements of the contract, and the capabilities of the two competing firms. If both bidders are highly capable and the government has strong negotiation leverage, good value can still be achieved. However, there is an increased risk that the pricing might be higher than it would be in a more robustly competitive environment, and the government may not have access to the absolute best solution available in the broader market.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'Battlefield Systems Sub Task' or similar engineering services by the General Services Administration (GSA)?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for 'Battlefield Systems Sub Task' specifically by the General Services Administration (GSA) is challenging without access to granular contract data beyond what is publicly available. GSA primarily acts as a procurement and management agency, often facilitating contracts for other federal entities. Therefore, while GSA awarded this specific contract, the ultimate 'customer' or beneficiary agency for 'Battlefield Systems' is likely within the Department of Defense or a related security agency. Historical spending on battlefield systems and related engineering services across the federal government, particularly the DoD, has been substantial and fluctuates based on geopolitical conditions, technological advancements, and budget allocations. GSA's role might be more about contract vehicle management rather than direct programmatic spending on battlefield systems themselves. To understand broader trends, one would need to examine spending data from agencies like the Department of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or DARPA on similar engineering and system development efforts.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12010, SUNSET HILLS ROAD, RESTON, VA, 20190

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $256,103,918

Exercised Options: $256,103,918

Current Obligation: $53,055,959

Actual Outlays: $-3,675

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 114

Total Subaward Amount: $435,492,640

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADU329

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline