DOJ's $13.3M IT contract with Leidos Aspen Systems Corp. for facilities management services awarded in 2004

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,365,501 ($13.4M)

Contractor: Leidos Aspen Systems Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2004-04-01

End Date: 2008-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Official Description: NCJRS 2008 CORE / LOT 1 T&M

Place of Performance

Location: ROCKVILLE, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20850

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $13.4 million to LEIDOS ASPEN SYSTEMS CORP for work described as: NCJRS 2008 CORE / LOT 1 T&M Key points: 1. The contract utilized a Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, which can pose risks if not closely managed. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for these services. 3. The duration of 1460 days (4 years) indicates a significant, long-term need for the services. 4. The contract was a delivery order under a larger IDIQ, suggesting it's part of a broader procurement strategy. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541513 points to a focus on computer facilities management. 6. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, implying the scope or nature of services favored larger entities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this 2004 contract is challenging due to the age of the data and the T&M pricing model. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the total award amount of over $13 million over four years suggests a substantial investment in IT facilities management. Comparisons to similar contracts from that era would be necessary for a more precise valuation, but the available data is limited.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. This competitive process is generally expected to drive better pricing and service quality. The presence of 4 bids (no=4) suggests a reasonable level of interest from the market for these IT facilities management services.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process like this typically benefits taxpayers by fostering a market that encourages efficiency and cost-effectiveness among contractors.

Public Impact

The Department of Justice benefits from the continuity of IT facilities management services, ensuring operational stability. The services delivered likely include maintenance, support, and management of computer hardware and infrastructure. The geographic impact is primarily within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, likely supporting federal operations. Workforce implications may include the direct employment of IT professionals by the contractor and potential indirect impacts on government IT staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials (T&M) pricing can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently, as it incentivizes labor hours over fixed outcomes.
The age of the contract data makes it difficult to assess current market relevance and value.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data hinders a thorough assessment of contractor performance.
The contract was a delivery order, which can sometimes obscure the total value and scope of the underlying IDIQ contract.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a healthy market and potential for competitive pricing.
The contract duration of four years indicates a stable, long-term requirement met by this award.
The specific NAICS code provides clarity on the specialized IT services being procured.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology sector, specifically focusing on computer facilities management. The IT services market is vast and highly competitive, with significant government spending allocated to maintaining and upgrading federal IT infrastructure. Contracts like this are crucial for ensuring the operational readiness of government agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing IT support and facilities management contracts across various federal agencies for similar service scopes and durations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb=false). This suggests that the scale, complexity, or specific requirements of the IT facilities management services were likely better suited for larger contractors, or that the competition was broad enough to not necessitate a set-aside. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, but for contracts of this nature and size, subcontracting to small businesses is often a component, though not mandated by a set-aside.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs. Accountability measures would typically involve contract performance reviews, adherence to service level agreements (SLAs), and financial audits. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS-NG (where this data originates). Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

IT Facilities Management Services
Computer Systems Design Services
IT Support Services
Federal IT Procurement
Department of Justice IT Spending

Risk Flags

Time and Materials Pricing Risk
Data Age/Relevance
Lack of Performance Metrics
Potential for Cost Overruns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $13.4 million to LEIDOS ASPEN SYSTEMS CORP. NCJRS 2008 CORE / LOT 1 T&M

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LEIDOS ASPEN SYSTEMS CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Office of Justice Programs).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-04-01. End: 2008-03-31.

What was the contractor's track record with the Department of Justice prior to this award?

The provided data does not include information on Leidos Aspen Systems Corp.'s prior track record specifically with the Department of Justice before this 2004 award. To assess their track record, one would need to consult historical contract databases (like FPDS-NG) for previous awards to this entity by the DOJ, review past performance evaluations if available, and examine any publicly reported issues or successes. Without this historical context, it's difficult to gauge their established performance level with the agency.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to similar IT facilities management contracts awarded around 2004?

A direct per-unit cost comparison is not feasible with the provided data, as it lacks granular details on the units of service (e.g., per server managed, per hour of support). Furthermore, the contract utilized a Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, which makes direct benchmarking difficult as costs are driven by labor hours and material costs rather than fixed unit prices. To perform such a comparison, one would need access to detailed cost breakdowns from this contract and comparable contracts from the same period, focusing on similar service scopes and geographic locations.

What were the primary risks associated with the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing model for this contract?

The primary risk associated with the T&M pricing model for this contract is the potential for cost overruns and a lack of definitive cost control. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M incentivizes the contractor to bill for hours worked and materials used, rather than for achieving specific outcomes or efficiencies. This can lead to increased costs for the government if work is not managed diligently, if the scope creeps, or if labor rates are higher than anticipated. Effective oversight, detailed tracking of hours, and clear definition of work tasks are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective was the competition in driving value for the Department of Justice on this contract?

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition' with four bids received. This level of competition is generally considered healthy and suggests that the market had multiple capable providers. A competitive environment typically pressures bidders to offer competitive pricing and demonstrate strong capabilities, which should translate into better value for the government. However, the ultimate effectiveness in driving value also depends on the government's ability to define requirements clearly, evaluate proposals effectively, and manage the contract post-award, especially given the T&M pricing structure.

What was the historical spending pattern for IT facilities management services by the Office of Justice Programs prior to this contract?

The provided data does not contain information on the historical spending patterns of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) for IT facilities management services prior to this 2004 contract. To analyze historical spending, one would need to access multi-year federal procurement databases and filter for similar contract types, services (NAICS codes), and the specific agency/sub-agency. This would reveal trends in spending levels, contract durations, and potentially identify shifts in procurement strategies or service needs over time.

Were there any performance issues or contract disputes reported for this specific delivery order?

The provided summary data does not include information regarding performance issues or contract disputes related to this specific delivery order. Such details are typically found in contract performance reports, contract close-out documentation, or potentially in legal or administrative dispute resolution records. Without access to these more detailed contract management records, it is impossible to determine if any performance issues or disputes arose during the contract's lifecycle.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Computer Facilities Management Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Leidos Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 611641312)

Address: 2277 RESEARCH BLVD, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20850

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,365,501

Exercised Options: $13,365,501

Current Obligation: $13,365,501

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DJO2004C007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline