DoD's $115M sensor support contract awarded to CACI Technologies, LLC, for field service and engineering

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $115,201,810 ($115.2M)

Contractor: CACI Technologies, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-01-30

End Date: 2017-07-31

Contract Duration: 913 days

Daily Burn Rate: $126.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::CL,CT::IGF THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK ORDER IS TO PROVIDE FIELD SERVICE, ENGINEERING,, AND MODELING&SIMULATION OF SENSORS APPLICATIONS SUPPORT FOR FORCE PROTECTION.

Place of Performance

Location: ABINGDON, HARFORD County, MARYLAND, 21009

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $115.2 million to CACI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC for work described as: IGF::CL,CT::IGF THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK ORDER IS TO PROVIDE FIELD SERVICE, ENGINEERING,, AND MODELING&SIMULATION OF SENSORS APPLICATIONS SUPPORT FOR FORCE PROTECTION. Key points: 1. Contract provides essential field service, engineering, and modeling/simulation for sensor applications supporting force protection. 2. Awarded under a full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 913 days indicates a significant, medium-term engagement. 4. CACI Technologies, LLC, is the sole awardee for this specific task order. 5. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), which allows for cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major component of the DoD. 7. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to Engineering Services. 8. The contract was awarded in Maryland, indicating a specific geographic focus for service delivery.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully, as the government bears the risk of actual costs. Benchmarking the value is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable contracts for similar sensor application support. The fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for the contractor's profit, but the overall cost is variable. Further analysis would require understanding the scope of 'field service, engineering, and modeling & simulation' and comparing it to industry standards for similar support.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This task order was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The number of bidders is not specified, but this procurement method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and terms for the government. The open competition suggests that the Army sought the best value proposition from the market for these specialized engineering and support services.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and innovative solutions, potentially leading to cost savings and improved service delivery.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and specifically the Department of the Army, receiving critical support for force protection capabilities. Services delivered include field service, engineering, and modeling & simulation for sensor applications. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in areas where Army forces require sensor application support, with the awardee based in Maryland. Workforce implications include the potential for employment of engineers, technicians, and support staff by CACI Technologies, LLC, to fulfill the contract requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs if not closely monitored, potentially exceeding initial budget expectations.
The lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value-for-money and effectiveness of the services provided.
The broad scope of 'field service, engineering, and modeling & simulation' could lead to scope creep if not clearly defined and managed.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair bidding process.
The contract addresses critical force protection needs, indicating strategic importance for the Department of the Army.
CACI Technologies, LLC, is a known entity in government contracting, potentially bringing established expertise.

Sector Analysis

The Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330) is a significant part of the federal contracting landscape, particularly within the Department of Defense. This contract falls within the broader defense technology and services market, which is characterized by complex requirements and specialized expertise. Spending in this sector often supports the development, testing, and sustainment of advanced military systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other contracts for similar engineering and field support services provided to military branches.

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 for small businesses arising from a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor, CACI Technologies, LLC, may choose to subcontract portions of this work to small businesses as part of its overall business strategy, but this is not mandated by the contract terms provided.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contract administration team within the Department of the Army. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) nature of the contract necessitates close monitoring of costs incurred by the contractor to ensure reasonableness and allowability. Transparency is generally provided through contract award databases, but detailed performance reporting and specific oversight mechanisms are often internal to the agency. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Sensor Development Programs
Army Force Protection Initiatives
Engineering and Technical Services Contracts
Modeling and Simulation Support Services
Field Service Representative Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Risk (CPFF)
Scope Creep Potential
Performance Measurement Difficulty

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $115.2 million to CACI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. IGF::CL,CT::IGF THE PURPOSE OF THIS TASK ORDER IS TO PROVIDE FIELD SERVICE, ENGINEERING,, AND MODELING&SIMULATION OF SENSORS APPLICATIONS SUPPORT FOR FORCE PROTECTION.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CACI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $115.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-01-30. End: 2017-07-31.

What is the track record of CACI Technologies, LLC, in delivering similar sensor application support services to the Department of Defense?

CACI Technologies, LLC, has a substantial history of providing a wide range of services to the Department of Defense, including IT, engineering, and professional services. While specific details on their track record for 'sensor applications support for force protection' require deeper investigation into past performance reports and contract histories, CACI is a large, established government contractor. Their portfolio often includes complex technical support, systems integration, and field services. To fully assess their capability for this specific task order, one would need to review past performance evaluations, any debriefings from similar competitive procurements, and their demonstrated expertise in the specific sensor technologies relevant to force protection.

How does the awarded amount of approximately $115 million compare to similar contracts for sensor application support?

Benchmarking the $115 million award requires comparing it against contracts with similar scope, duration, and complexity within the defense sector. Contracts for 'field service, engineering, and modeling & simulation of sensors applications support for force protection' can vary significantly based on the specific technologies involved, the level of technical expertise required, and the geographic reach of the support. Without access to a comprehensive database of comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state whether this amount is high or low. However, given the duration of 913 days (over two years) and the specialized nature of defense-related engineering services, an award in the tens of millions is not unusual for such a task order.

What are the primary risks associated with this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the government bears the risk of cost overruns. While the contractor's profit (the fixed fee) is predetermined, the total cost of performance is not capped. If the contractor incurs higher-than-expected costs due to inefficiencies, unforeseen technical challenges, or scope creep, the government pays these costs. Effective oversight, rigorous cost monitoring, and clear definition of the statement of work are crucial to mitigate these risks. The contractor also faces the risk of not meeting performance standards, which could impact future contract awards, but the financial risk is largely on the government.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' approach in ensuring value for taxpayers in this context?

The 'full and open competition' approach is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for taxpayers in federal contracting. By allowing all responsible sources to compete, it fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices, encourages innovation, and leads to the selection of the best overall value. For specialized services like sensor application support, this means the Department of the Army likely received multiple proposals, allowing them to compare technical approaches, past performance, and pricing. This process increases the likelihood that taxpayer funds are used efficiently and that the government obtains high-quality services at a reasonable cost.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services related to force protection within the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on engineering services for force protection within the Department of the Army is substantial and multifaceted, reflecting the continuous need to adapt and enhance security measures. This spending encompasses a wide range of activities, including the development and integration of sensor technologies, physical security system design, threat analysis, and the implementation of protective measures. While specific aggregate figures for 'force protection engineering services' are not readily available without detailed analysis of agency budgets and contract databases, it is a consistent area of investment. Spending patterns are influenced by evolving threat landscapes, technological advancements in surveillance and defense, and strategic priorities for troop safety and base security.

What are the implications of the contract duration (913 days) on cost and performance?

A contract duration of 913 days, approximately 2.5 years, suggests a medium-term engagement for providing specialized engineering and field support. This duration allows for a more stable planning and execution environment for both the contractor and the agency, potentially leading to better performance and reduced turnover compared to shorter-term contracts. For cost, a longer duration can allow for economies of scale and more predictable resource allocation. However, it also increases the overall financial commitment and the potential exposure to cost fluctuations over time. It implies that the services required are not short-term fixes but rather ongoing support critical to the agency's mission.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CACI International Inc

Address: 14370 NEWBROOK DRIVE, 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: $117,291,482

Exercised Options: $115,394,274

Current Obligation: $115,201,810

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 21

Total Subaward Amount: $3,015,517

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T06DE402

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline