DoD's $15.7M Contract with CUBE CORPORATION: Full and Open Competition Yields Cost Plus Award Fee Structure
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $15,691,409 ($15.7M)
Contractor: Cube Corporation, the
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2000-09-28
End Date: 2005-12-29
Contract Duration: 1,918 days
Daily Burn Rate: $8.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Place of Performance
Location: ROYAL, GARLAND County, ARKANSAS, 71968
State: Arkansas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $15.7 million to CUBE CORPORATION, THE for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded to CUBE CORPORATION for $15.7 million. 2. Utilized full and open competition after exclusion of sources. 3. Contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee. 4. Significant duration of 1918 days. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure can incentivize performance but may lead to higher costs if award criteria are not strictly managed. Without specific benchmarks for this type of service, assessing value is difficult.
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, suggesting an attempt to broaden the supplier base. However, the 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation into why specific sources were excluded, which could impact price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: The use of CPAF and the extended duration suggest potential for cost overruns if not closely monitored, impacting taxpayer funds.
Public Impact
Taxpayers funded a significant contract over a long period. The competition method aimed for broad participation but had exclusions. Award fee structure implies performance-based incentives for the contractor. Contract duration suggests a long-term service or project.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost creep with CPAF if not managed.
- Duration of contract may indicate lack of flexibility.
- Exclusion of sources in competition needs clarification.
Positive Signals
- Full and open competition was utilized.
- Award fee structure can drive performance.
- Contract awarded to a specific entity, CUBE CORPORATION.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls under general services or potentially IT/support, given the lack of specific PSC. The duration and CPAF structure are common in complex service contracts where performance is difficult to define upfront. Benchmarks vary widely by service type.
Small Business Impact
The data does not indicate if small businesses were involved as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine small business participation.
Oversight & Accountability
The CPAF structure requires robust oversight to ensure award criteria are met and costs are controlled. The extended duration necessitates continuous monitoring by the Department of the Army.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure.
- Lack of clarity on 'exclusion of sources' rationale.
- Long contract duration may indicate inflexibility or scope creep.
- No explicit mention of small business participation.
Tags
department-of-defense, ar, definitive-contract, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $15.7 million to CUBE CORPORATION, THE. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is CUBE CORPORATION, THE.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $15.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2000-09-28. End: 2005-12-29.
What specific services or goods were procured under this contract, and how did the CPAF structure align with the expected outcomes?
The specific services or goods procured are not detailed in the provided data. However, a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract is typically used when the scope of work is not fully defined or when performance incentives are desired. The award fee is contingent upon meeting pre-defined performance objectives, quality standards, and delivery schedules. Effective alignment requires clear, measurable, and achievable criteria within the contract.
What were the reasons for excluding certain sources during the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' process, and did this impact the final contract price?
The exclusion of sources, even within a full and open competition framework, suggests that certain vendors were deemed ineligible or unsuitable based on specific criteria outlined in the solicitation. Reasons could include past performance issues, lack of specific capabilities, or failure to meet pre-qualification requirements. This exclusion could potentially limit competition, possibly leading to a higher price than if all potential sources were considered.
How effectively did the Department of the Army manage the CPAF contract over its 1918-day duration to ensure value for taxpayer money?
Effectiveness in managing a CPAF contract over a long duration hinges on rigorous performance monitoring, clear communication, and objective evaluation of award fee criteria. The Department of the Army would need to have established robust processes for tracking contractor performance against defined metrics, conducting regular reviews, and ensuring that award fees were justified. Without access to performance reports and audit findings, assessing the actual value realized is challenging.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Babcock International Group PLC (UEI: 503172199)
Address: 45665 WILLOW POND PLAZA, STERLING, VA, 20164
Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2000-09-28
Current End Date: 2005-12-29
Potential End Date: 2005-12-29 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2020-05-28
More Contracts from Cube Corporation, the
- THE Contractor Shall Provide Support in the Following Areas: Program Management Facilities Engineering AT WFF Operations and Maintenance of Facilities Construction - Building and Renovation of Buildings Janitorial - Cleaning Buildings Grounds Services - Cutting Grass Chemical Laboratory - Water, ETC. Testing Occupational Health Clinic Environmental AT WFF Security Emergency Telecommunications - Data and Phone Oversite Administrative Services Logistics - Packaging, Accessing Equipment, Vehicles Navy Financial Services — $382.9M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 200207!000041!2100!BT60 !tradoc Contracting Activity !dabt6001c0014 !A!N! !N! !20020322!20020819!926153875!926153875!926153875!n!the Cube Corporation !45665 Willow Pond PLZ !sterling !va!20164!26664!141!48!fort Bliss !EL Paso !texas !+000000211405!n!n!000000000000!m199!operation/Other Miscellaneous Buildings !S1 !services !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !561210!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!b!f!n!a! !a!n!v!2!002!b! !C!N!Z! ! !n!a!n!n!d! ! ! !a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $173.9M (Department of Defense)
- 200110!000312!5700!CA09 !45 Cons/Lgc !F0865001C0058 !A!N!*!Y! !20010524!20070930!926153875!926153875!926153875!n!cube Corporation !45665 Willow Pond Plaza !sterling !va!20164!55375!009!12!patrick AFB !brevard !florida !+000004139150!n!n!000000000000!r706!logistics Support Services !S1 !services !3000!NOT Discernable or Classified !561210!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!J!2!003!K! !C!N!A! ! !y!a!n!n!d! ! ! !d!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $34.2M (Department of Defense)
- 200012!96ce!000002!cw54 !USA Engineer District Wilmington!dacw5400c0001 !A!*!* !19991201!20001001!926153875!926153875!926153875!n!041y2!cube Corporation !45665 Willow Pond Plaza !sterling !va!20164!09016!117!51!boydton !mecklenburg !virginia !0001!+000001611680!n!n!000000000000!s216!facilities Operations Support Services !S1 !services !5000!NOT Discernable or Classified !8744!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !n!r!2!004!n!5a!c!n!z!* !* !n!a!n!*!*!a!a!a!a!* !d!n!a!b!n!*!*!*!*!*! — $9.9M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)