DOT's FAA awards $2M for aerospace engineering support, with ASRC Federal Systems Solutions winning the delivery order

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,000,316 ($2.0M)

Contractor: Asrc Federal System Solutions LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2024-04-03

End Date: 2024-04-07

Contract Duration: 4 days

Daily Burn Rate: $500.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: NATIONAL AEROSPACE SYSTEM ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES (AJW-161)

Place of Performance

Location: OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA County, OKLAHOMA, 73169

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $2.0 million to ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS LLC for work described as: NATIONAL AEROSPACE SYSTEM ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES (AJW-161) Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the fixed-price nature of the contract. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open competition, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators are low, with the contract status marked as 'OK'. 4. Performance context is for a short duration (4 days), implying a specific, limited task. 5. Sector positioning is within engineering services for the aerospace domain.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $2 million for a 4-day period is substantial for the duration. As a delivery order under a larger contract, direct comparison to similar standalone contracts is difficult. However, the firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government. The benchmark of $500,079 for the base contract provides some context for the scale of work anticipated.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that the opportunity was broadly advertised, but specific sources were excluded from bidding. This suggests a competitive process was intended, though the exclusion of certain sources warrants further investigation into the rationale. The number of bidders is not specified, but the competitive nature implies multiple entities had the opportunity to propose.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with exclusions, generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to better pricing and service quality.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which receives essential engineering support. Services delivered include specialized engineering support crucial for aerospace system operations and maintenance. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around FAA facilities or project sites, with Oklahoma noted as the state. Workforce implications involve skilled engineers and technical personnel contributing to national aerospace infrastructure.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusions, which could impact price discovery.
Short contract duration might indicate a narrow scope, potentially leading to follow-on efforts if not fully addressed.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Awarded under a competitive process, suggesting a baseline of market-driven pricing.
Contract status is 'OK', indicating no immediate performance issues.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the aerospace industry. The aerospace engineering market is characterized by high technical expertise, stringent quality requirements, and significant government investment. Spending in this sector often supports national security, infrastructure development, and technological advancement. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale engineering support contracts for federal agencies like the FAA, NASA, or the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a delivery order likely awarded to a large business (ASRC Federal System Solutions), there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from this specific award. However, the prime contractor's overall subcontracting plan for the parent contract would dictate any broader small business utilization.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Federal Aviation Administration's contracting officers and program managers. As a delivery order under a larger contract, existing oversight mechanisms for the parent award would likely apply. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Aerospace Engineering Services
Federal Aviation Administration Contracts
Department of Transportation Procurement
Engineering and Technical Services

Risk Flags

Potential limited competition due to source exclusions.
Discrepancy between delivery order value and base contract value requires clarification.
Short duration of the delivery order may indicate a narrow scope or a need for follow-on work.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $2.0 million to ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS LLC. NATIONAL AEROSPACE SYSTEM ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES (AJW-161)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASRC FEDERAL SYSTEM SOLUTIONS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-04-03. End: 2024-04-07.

What is the track record of ASRC Federal System Solutions with the FAA and similar agencies?

ASRC Federal System Solutions has a significant history of contracting with federal agencies, including the FAA and Department of Defense. Their portfolio often includes complex engineering, IT, and professional services. Reviewing their past performance ratings and any documented issues on similar contracts would provide insight into their reliability and capability. For instance, examining previous delivery orders under the same parent contract, if applicable, could reveal patterns in performance, timeliness, and adherence to cost. A deeper dive into contract close-out data and any disputes or claims filed by or against the contractor would further illuminate their track record.

How does the value of this delivery order compare to the base contract value and its duration?

This delivery order is valued at approximately $2 million and has a duration of only 4 days. The base contract value is $500,079. This presents an unusual scenario where the delivery order significantly exceeds the stated base contract value. Typically, delivery orders are smaller components of a larger base contract. The discrepancy suggests either the base contract value is a placeholder or initial estimate, and the total contract value is much higher, or this delivery order represents a substantial, perhaps unforeseen, requirement. Clarification on the total ceiling value of the parent contract and the intended scope of this specific delivery order is necessary for a proper value assessment.

What are the specific engineering services being procured, and what is their criticality?

The contract title 'NATIONAL AEROSPACE SYSTEM ENGINEERING SUPPORT SERVICES (AJW-161)' indicates the procurement of specialized engineering support for national aerospace systems. While the specific tasks are not detailed in the provided data, such services typically encompass areas like system design, integration, testing, analysis, maintenance planning, and technical documentation for complex aerospace platforms. The criticality of these services is likely high, given their role in ensuring the safety, efficiency, and operational readiness of national aerospace assets managed by the FAA. Disruptions or deficiencies in these engineering services could have significant safety and operational consequences.

What does 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' imply for pricing and efficiency?

This procurement method implies that the solicitation was made available to all responsible sources, but certain sources were specifically excluded from bidding. While 'full and open competition' generally promotes price discovery and efficiency by allowing multiple vendors to compete, the 'exclusion of sources' clause introduces a layer of complexity. The rationale behind these exclusions needs to be understood; if justified (e.g., based on security, specialized capabilities, or past performance), it might still lead to competitive pricing among the remaining eligible bidders. However, if the exclusions were arbitrary or overly restrictive, they could limit competition, potentially leading to higher prices or reduced innovation compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar aerospace engineering support services by the FAA?

Historical spending data for similar aerospace engineering support services by the FAA would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and types of competition. Analyzing past awards for 'engineering services' within the aerospace domain, particularly those related to air traffic management systems or aircraft certification, would provide benchmarks. This analysis should consider the number of contracts awarded, the average contract value, the dominant contract types (e.g., firm-fixed-price vs. cost-plus), and the prevalence of different competition levels. Understanding these patterns helps assess whether the current $2 million delivery order is within the typical range or represents an outlier, and whether the FAA is effectively leveraging competition to manage costs for these critical services.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: TWO STEP

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

Address: 7000 MUIRKIRK MEADOWS DR STE 100, BELTSVILLE, MD, 20705

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $5,144,083

Exercised Options: $2,000,316

Current Obligation: $2,000,316

Actual Outlays: $2,000,315

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 6973GH18D00008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline