Transportation DOT awards Jacobs Engineering $7.6M for facilities support, with a long performance period

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $7,664,018 ($7.7M)

Contractor: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2020-02-13

End Date: 2028-09-01

Contract Duration: 3,123 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: Other

Official Description: FACILITIES GENERAL ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22201

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $7.7 million to JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. for work described as: FACILITIES GENERAL ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract value appears moderate for engineering services, but the extended performance period suggests potential for significant future spending. 2. Competition was full and open, indicating a healthy market for these services. 3. The contract type is labor hours, which can present cost control challenges if not managed diligently. 4. Performance is concentrated in Virginia, suggesting a regional focus for these facilities support services. 5. The contractor, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., is a large, established firm in the engineering sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $7.6 million for facilities engineering, design, and construction management support is within a reasonable range for a large, established firm like Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. However, the extended performance period through September 2028 (over 8 years from award) means the total potential value could be substantially higher. Benchmarking against similar contracts for comprehensive facilities support services would be necessary to fully assess value for money, especially considering the labor hours pricing structure.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple capable bidders had the opportunity to compete. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the designation implies a robust competitive process. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the best value and pricing for essential engineering and facilities support services.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) benefits from specialized engineering and construction management support for its facilities. Services delivered include general engineering, design, and management of construction projects. The primary geographic impact is in Virginia, where the contract is being performed. The contract supports a workforce of engineers and construction management professionals, likely including both direct hires and subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Labor hours contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored and managed.
The long performance period increases the risk of scope creep or evolving requirements not being adequately addressed in the initial contract.
Potential for contractor to leverage long-term relationship for future sole-source opportunities if not managed carefully.

Positive Signals

Award to a large, experienced contractor like Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. suggests a lower risk of performance failure.
Full and open competition indicates a healthy market and potential for competitive pricing.
The contract supports critical FAA infrastructure, ensuring operational continuity.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting facilities management and construction. The engineering services market is substantial, with significant government spending allocated to design, consulting, and construction oversight. This contract represents a portion of the Department of Transportation's broader investment in maintaining and upgrading its infrastructure, aligning with broader trends in federal spending on facilities and capital projects.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (sb) is false and the contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss is false). This suggests that the primary award went to a large business, Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which would be a key area to monitor for their inclusion in the broader ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's performance work statement, requiring adherence to schedules, quality standards, and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics and specific oversight activities may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Facilities Management
Engineering and Architectural Services
Construction Management Support Services
Department of Transportation Capital Investments

Risk Flags

Labor Hours Pricing
Long Performance Period
Potential for Scope Creep

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $7.7 million to JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.. FACILITIES GENERAL ENGINEERING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $7.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-02-13. End: 2028-09-01.

What is the historical spending trend for similar facilities engineering and management support contracts awarded by the FAA?

Analyzing historical spending for similar FAA contracts requires access to detailed contract databases. However, generally, federal agencies like the FAA award numerous contracts for facilities engineering, design, and construction management support annually. Spending can fluctuate based on infrastructure modernization needs, new construction projects, and maintenance cycles. Contracts of this nature, especially those with long performance periods, can represent significant recurring investments. A trend analysis would involve examining the total value, number of awards, and average contract values over several fiscal years to identify patterns in demand and budget allocation for these services.

How does the labor hours pricing structure compare to fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee for this type of service?

Labor hours (LH) contracts are typically used when the scope of work is not clearly defined or is expected to change. They reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours at specified rates, plus a multiplier for indirect costs and profit. This contrasts with fixed-price (FP) contracts, where the price is set regardless of the actual cost incurred, offering cost certainty to the government but shifting risk to the contractor. Cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contracts reimburse costs and add a fixed fee, often used for development or R&D. For facilities engineering, LH can be flexible but carries a higher risk of cost escalation if not tightly managed. FP might be suitable for well-defined design tasks, while CPFF is less common for routine support.

What is Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.'s track record with the Federal Aviation Administration and similar agencies?

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. is a major global provider of engineering, procurement, and construction services, with a significant history of working with government agencies, including the FAA and Department of Defense. Their track record typically involves large-scale infrastructure projects, design services, and program management. Performance reviews and past performance information, often available in federal procurement databases, would provide specific insights into their success rates, quality of work, and adherence to schedules on previous FAA contracts. Generally, their size and experience suggest a capacity to handle complex federal requirements.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for a contract like this would likely focus on the timely and cost-effective delivery of engineering, design, and construction management services. Specific KPIs could include adherence to project schedules, meeting design specifications and quality standards, effective budget management for construction projects overseen, responsiveness to FAA requests, and overall client satisfaction. The contract's performance work statement (PWS) would detail these requirements and the metrics used for evaluation. Regular performance reviews would assess the contractor's achievement against these KPIs.

Are there any specific risks associated with the 'VIRGINIA' location for facilities support?

The 'VIRGINIA' location itself does not inherently present unique risks for facilities support beyond those common to any large-scale contract performance. Potential risks could relate to the specific types of facilities being supported (e.g., airports, air traffic control centers), which may have unique operational requirements and security protocols. Labor market conditions in Virginia could influence staffing costs and availability. Furthermore, proximity to federal agencies in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area might imply stringent security clearances and reporting requirements. However, without more context on the specific facilities, it's difficult to pinpoint location-specific risks beyond general operational and logistical considerations.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - CONSTRUCTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1100 NORTH GLEBE RD STE 500, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $7,664,018

Exercised Options: $7,664,018

Current Obligation: $7,664,018

Actual Outlays: $5,104,459

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 697DCK19D00002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline