WSP USA secured $49.8M in engineering services from DoD, spanning over 7 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $49,765,918 ($49.8M)
Contractor: WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2002-08-20
End Date: 2010-06-30
Contract Duration: 2,871 days
Daily Burn Rate: $17.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Place of Performance
Location: AGAWAM, HAMPDEN County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01001
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $49.8 million to WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in specialized engineering expertise. 2. Long duration suggests a sustained need for these services. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide predictability. 4. Competition level indicates a potentially robust market for these services. 5. The contract's performance period spans a notable timeframe, requiring consistent oversight. 6. Engineering services are critical for infrastructure and project development.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract's total value of $49.8 million over nearly 8 years suggests a reasonable annual expenditure for specialized engineering services. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering contracts would provide further insight into its value-for-money proposition. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control, assuming the scope was well-defined.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources may have been excluded for specific reasons. The presence of 5 bidders suggests a competitive environment, but the exclusion of sources warrants further investigation to ensure fair market access and optimal pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources could potentially limit the number of competitive bids, possibly impacting the final price achieved for taxpayers. However, with 5 bidders, a degree of price discovery was likely present.
Public Impact
The Department of the Army benefits from essential engineering and infrastructure support. Services likely contribute to the maintenance, upgrade, or development of military facilities and infrastructure. Geographic impact is likely concentrated around Army installations where services are rendered. Workforce implications include employment for engineers, technicians, and support staff within WSP USA and potentially its subcontractors.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for limited competition due to exclusion of sources.
- Risk of scope creep in long-term engineering projects.
- Dependence on a single contractor for critical services over an extended period.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract helps manage cost overruns.
- Multiple bidders indicate market interest and potential for competitive pricing.
- Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing need for the services.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector supports a wide range of government and private sector projects, including infrastructure development, environmental consulting, and design services. The market for federal engineering services is substantial, with agencies like the Department of Defense being major clients.
Small Business Impact
The contract data indicates that small business participation (sb) was false, and it was not a small business set-aside (ss). This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses within the ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contract administration office within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and adherence to contract terms are key oversight functions. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases, though specific performance details may be less public.
Related Government Programs
- Military Construction
- Base Operations Support
- Environmental Remediation Services
- Architectural and Engineering Services
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration increases risk of scope creep and technological obsolescence.
- Competition level ('limited') warrants scrutiny to ensure optimal pricing.
- Potential for personnel turnover impacting consistent performance over time.
Tags
engineering-services, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, large-contract, professional-scientific-and-technical-services, limited-competition, usa, infrastructure, wsp-usa-environment-infrastructure-inc
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $49.8 million to WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE INC.. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is WSP USA ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $49.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2002-08-20. End: 2010-06-30.
What is the historical spending trend for engineering services by the Department of the Army?
Analyzing historical spending for engineering services by the Department of the Army reveals a consistent and significant demand, driven by the need to maintain, upgrade, and develop vast military infrastructure globally. Over the past decade, annual expenditures have fluctuated based on budgetary allocations, geopolitical priorities, and specific large-scale projects. For instance, periods of increased global engagement or modernization initiatives often correlate with higher spending on engineering and construction-related services. Conversely, budget austerity measures or shifts in strategic focus can lead to temporary reductions. The average annual spend typically falls within the billions of dollars, encompassing a wide array of services from design and planning to environmental assessments and project management. This specific contract, valued at approximately $49.8 million over its duration, represents a portion of this larger, ongoing investment in engineering capabilities.
How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar engineering service contracts awarded by the DoD?
Benchmarking the pricing of this $49.8 million engineering services contract against similar awards by the Department of Defense requires access to detailed cost breakdowns and scope of work for comparable contracts. However, general observations can be made. The contract's firm fixed-price (FFP) nature suggests an effort to lock in costs, which can be advantageous if the scope is well-defined. If the contract involved highly specialized or novel engineering solutions, the price might be expected to be higher than standard services. Conversely, if it covered routine infrastructure support, the pricing would be expected to align closely with market rates. Factors such as contract duration, geographic location of services, and the specific technical expertise required significantly influence pricing. Without direct comparative data on hourly rates, overhead, and profit margins for similar FFP contracts within the DoD, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the multi-year duration and substantial total value indicate a significant commitment.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) typically used to evaluate engineering service contracts of this nature?
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for evaluating engineering service contracts like this one generally focus on technical execution, schedule adherence, cost control, and client satisfaction. For technical execution, KPIs might include the accuracy and completeness of designs, the quality of technical reports, and compliance with relevant engineering standards and regulations. Schedule adherence is critical, measured by the on-time completion of project milestones and the overall project delivery date. Cost control, particularly relevant for fixed-price contracts, involves monitoring expenditures against the awarded price and managing any potential change orders effectively. Client satisfaction is often gauged through formal feedback mechanisms, performance reviews, and the absence of significant disputes or claims. For a contract of this scale and duration, KPIs would likely be formalized in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) and regularly reviewed by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR).
What is the track record of WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. in performing similar federal contracts?
WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. has a substantial track record of performing various engineering and infrastructure-related contracts for federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. Their portfolio often includes large-scale projects involving design, environmental consulting, program management, and construction oversight. Historical data from federal procurement databases generally indicates a pattern of successful contract performance across numerous awards. While specific details on past performance metrics for every contract are not always publicly available, their continued success in securing significant federal contracts suggests a generally positive performance history. Agencies often consider past performance as a critical factor in source selection, implying that WSP USA has met or exceeded expectations on previous engagements. However, a thorough review would involve examining specific contract close-outs and any reported performance issues or commendations.
What are the potential risks associated with a long-duration (over 7 years) engineering services contract?
Long-duration engineering services contracts, such as this one spanning over seven years, present several potential risks. Firstly, the risk of scope creep is elevated; as projects evolve, there's a tendency for requirements to expand beyond the original agreement, potentially leading to cost overruns if not managed strictly through change control processes. Secondly, technological advancements during the contract period could render initial designs or methodologies obsolete, requiring costly updates or modifications. Thirdly, contractor performance can degrade over extended periods due to personnel turnover, loss of institutional knowledge, or shifts in company priorities. For the government, there's also the risk of becoming overly reliant on a single contractor, potentially reducing leverage in future negotiations. Finally, economic or political shifts could impact the project's funding or strategic importance, leading to potential contract modifications or terminations.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: ARCHITECT-ENGINEER FAR 6.102
Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Amec PLC (UEI: 229533856)
Address: 4455 BROOKFIELD CORP DR, CHANTILLY, VA, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: DAHA9001D0006
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2002-08-20
Current End Date: 2010-06-30
Potential End Date: 2010-06-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-06-06
More Contracts from WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc.
- Afghanistan Defense University, Qarghag — $94.7M (Department of Defense)
- Construct Coalition Compound Billeting — $53.6M (Department of Defense)
- Central Treatment Plant Upgrades Igf::ot::igf — $49.6M (Department of Defense)
- 200505!000166!5700!fa8903!hsw/Pkv !FA890304D8669 !A!N! !N!0027 ! !20041029!20050501!038086125!200653459!229533856!n!amec Earth & Environmental Inc!one Plymouth Meeting STE 8!plymouth Meeti !PA!19462!00000! !IZ!* !* !iraq !+000043985787!n!n!000000000000!z111!maint/Office Buildings !C2 !construction !000 !* !562910!E! !5!B!M! !A! !20200930!B! ! !B! !a!u!u!2!004!b! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!M!N! ! ! ! ! !a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $43.8M (Department of Defense)
- Title I Services Afghanistan — $42.7M (Department of Defense)
View all WSP USA Environment & Infrastructure Inc. federal contracts →
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)