Department of Energy's $49.7M Engineering Services Contract Awarded to Technology and Management Services, Inc
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $49,756,600 ($49.8M)
Contractor: Technology and Management Services, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Energy
Start Date: 2004-12-01
End Date: 2009-11-30
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $27.3K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (TAMS) SERVICES CONTRACT
Place of Performance
Location: MORGANTOWN, MONONGALIA County, WEST VIRGINIA, 26505
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Energy obligated $49.8 million to TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. for work described as: TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (TAMS) SERVICES CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a potentially competitive process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), which incentivizes contractor performance but requires careful oversight. 3. The duration of 1825 days (5 years) suggests a long-term need for these engineering services. 4. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Technology and Management Services, Inc. 5. The base contract value is substantial, requiring diligent monitoring of costs and performance. 6. The contract is located in West Virginia, potentially impacting the local economy and workforce.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of approximately $49.7 million over five years averages to about $9.94 million annually. Without specific benchmarks for similar engineering services contracts within the Department of Energy or across government, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for performance-based incentives, which can be effective if well-defined and monitored. However, CPAF contracts can also lead to cost overruns if not managed rigorously, as the contractor is reimbursed for costs plus an award fee based on performance.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This solicitation method suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the final award. The number of bidders (6) indicates some level of interest, but the exclusion of sources raises questions about the breadth of the competition. This approach can sometimes limit price discovery compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition.
Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even if justified, may have limited the number of potential bidders, potentially impacting the most competitive pricing achievable for taxpayers.
Public Impact
The Department of Energy benefits from specialized engineering and management support services. The contract supports critical infrastructure and technological advancements within the energy sector. The geographic impact is concentrated in West Virginia, potentially creating or sustaining local jobs. The workforce implications include employment opportunities for engineers and technical professionals in the region.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost growth due to the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type if performance metrics are not strictly managed.
- The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition process warrants further investigation to ensure maximum taxpayer value.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics and award fee criteria makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the award fee component.
- The long contract duration could lead to vendor lock-in if not managed with regular performance reviews and market checks.
Positive Signals
- The contract was awarded following a competitive process with 6 bidders, indicating some level of market interest.
- The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, if properly implemented, can incentivize high performance and efficiency.
- The contract addresses a long-term need for specialized engineering services within the Department of Energy.
- The award to Technology and Management Services, Inc. suggests they possess the required technical capabilities.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS code 541330), which is a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector supports various government agencies by providing specialized expertise for complex projects. The Department of Energy, in particular, relies heavily on engineering services for research, development, infrastructure management, and regulatory compliance. Comparable spending benchmarks for engineering services contracts can vary widely based on scope, duration, and agency, but this contract represents a significant investment in specialized technical support.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside goal for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities offered by Technology and Management Services, Inc. Without specific subcontracting plans or goals mandated in the contract, it is difficult to assess the extent of small business involvement or its impact on the small business ecosystem. Future contracts of this nature could benefit from clearer small business subcontracting requirements to foster broader economic participation.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Energy's contracting officers and program managers. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure necessitates robust performance monitoring to ensure that award fees are justified and that costs remain reasonable. Transparency regarding the specific performance metrics and award fee determinations would be crucial for public accountability. While not explicitly stated, Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would likely extend to audits and investigations related to potential fraud, waste, or abuse within the contract's execution.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Energy Research and Development Contracts
- Federal Engineering Services Contracts
- Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
- Technology and Management Support Services
Risk Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure.
- Limited competition due to exclusion of sources.
- Long contract duration may reduce flexibility.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics in summary data.
Tags
engineering-services, department-of-energy, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, technology-and-management-services-inc, west-virginia, professional-scientific-and-technical-services, large-contract, multi-year
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Energy awarded $49.8 million to TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.. TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (TAMS) SERVICES CONTRACT
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $49.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2004-12-01. End: 2009-11-30.
What specific engineering and management support services are being provided under this contract?
The contract, identified as 'TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (TAMS) SERVICES CONTRACT,' broadly covers engineering and management support. While the specific deliverables are not detailed in the provided data, typical services under such contracts for the Department of Energy could include project management, systems engineering, technical consulting, research support, facility operations and maintenance oversight, environmental engineering, and cybersecurity management. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure suggests that the contractor's performance is evaluated against predefined metrics related to the quality, timeliness, and cost-effectiveness of these services. Detailed statements of work and performance work statements would outline the precise scope and requirements.
How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Award Fee) compare to other contract types for similar services, and what are the implications for cost control?
Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts reimburse the contractor for allowable costs and provide a base fee plus an award fee that is earned if performance exceeds baseline requirements. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPAF offers more flexibility for complex projects where scope may evolve, but it carries a higher risk of cost growth if not managed diligently. It is generally considered less cost-certain than FFP but can incentivize higher quality and performance than Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) or Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) if the award criteria are well-defined and aggressively monitored. Effective cost control under CPAF relies heavily on robust oversight, clear performance metrics, and a well-structured award fee determination process by the government.
What is the historical spending pattern for Technology and Management Services, Inc. with the Department of Energy or other federal agencies?
The provided data indicates this contract (awarded 2004, ending 2009) is a significant award to Technology and Management Services, Inc. from the Department of Energy. To assess their track record, a broader analysis of their contract history would be necessary. This would involve searching federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for other contracts awarded to this company, noting the agencies involved, contract types, values, and performance history. Understanding their past performance, particularly on similar types of services and contract structures (like CPAF), would provide valuable context for evaluating their reliability and cost-effectiveness on this specific TAMS contract.
What specific risks are associated with a 5-year Cost Plus Award Fee contract for engineering services, and how are they mitigated?
Key risks with a 5-year CPAF contract include potential cost overruns if performance metrics are not rigorously defined or monitored, leading to excessive award fees. There's also a risk of scope creep and contractor 'lock-in' over the long duration. Mitigation strategies involve establishing clear, measurable, and achievable performance standards tied directly to the award fee. Regular performance reviews, robust government oversight by contracting officers and technical monitors, and periodic market analyses are crucial. Furthermore, ensuring the contract includes appropriate clauses for termination for convenience and cost limitations helps manage financial exposure. Strong communication channels between the government and contractor are vital for proactive risk identification and resolution.
What does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' solicitation method imply about the competition level and potential impact on pricing?
This solicitation method implies that the agency initially intended to conduct a broad, open competition but subsequently excluded certain sources before the final award. The reasons for exclusion could range from specific technical requirements not met by some vendors to strategic sourcing decisions. While 6 bidders participated, the exclusion suggests that the pool of potential offerors was smaller than in a completely unrestricted competition. This could potentially limit the intensity of price competition, as fewer vendors might have been vying for the contract. The effectiveness of this method in achieving best value for taxpayers depends on the justification for the exclusions and whether the remaining competition was sufficiently robust.
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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: DE-RP26-04NT41816
Offers Received: 6
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: International Business Machines Corporation (UEI: 001368083)
Address: 18757 N FREDERICK ROAD, GAITHERSBURG, MD, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $58,860,968
Exercised Options: $58,860,968
Current Obligation: $49,756,600
Timeline
Start Date: 2004-12-01
Current End Date: 2009-11-30
Potential End Date: 2009-11-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2014-09-18
More Contracts from Technology and Management Services, Inc.
- Federal Contract — $34.2M (Department of Energy)
- TAS::97 0100::TAS 200407!001245!9700!hc1013!defense Info. Technology Contract!gs10f0343k !C!N! !n!hc101304f5201! !20040408!20050228!095354643!095354643!095354643!n!technology&management Servic!18757 North Frederick Road!gaithersburg !md!20879!31175!031!24!gaithersburg !montgomery !maryland !+000000557967!n!n!000000000000!7022!adp Centrl Processing Unit (CPU, Computer), Hybrid!s1 !services !000 !* !541519!E! !6! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B!E!Y! ! !A! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! !y!b!n!n! ! ! ! ! ! !00 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Z51700!0001! ! — $29.0M (Department of Defense)
- Provide Professional Engineering Services Tothe Fossil Energy Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fossil Energy, FE-3 — $19.4M (Department of Energy)
- TO Provide Professional Engineering Services to the Office of Clean Coal, Office of Fossil Energy — $18.9M (Department of Energy)
- TO Provide Support Services to the U.S. Department of Energy Deputy Assistant Secretary for Business Administration, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy — $11.7M (Department of Energy)
View all Technology and Management Services, Inc. federal contracts →
Other Department of Energy Contracts
- Federal Contract — $48.1B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- ,Ct::igf Contract Award De-Na0003525 to the National Technology&engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (ntess) for the Management and Operation of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) — $41.7B (National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC)
- Management and Operation of the OAK Ridge National Laboratory — $40.8B (Ut-Battelle LLC)
- TAS::89 0240::TAS This Performance-Based Management Contract (pbmc) IS for the Management and Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (llnl). the Contractor Shall, in Accordance With the Provisions of This Contract, Accomplish the Missions and Programs Assigned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Manage and Operate the Laboratory. the Laboratory IS ONE of Does Office of Defense Program Multi-Program Laboratories. the Laboratory IS a Federally Funded Research and Development Institution (established in Accordance With the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 35 and Operated Under This Management and Operating (M&O) Contract, AS Defined in FAR 17.6 and Dear 917.6 — $40.8B (Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC)
- M&O of Lanl BR of U of CA — $35.3B (Regents of the University of California, the)