Peraton Inc. receives $62.6M for engineering services, extending a contract first awarded in 2009

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $62,629,325 ($62.6M)

Contractor: Peraton Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2009-06-08

End Date: 2013-10-03

Contract Duration: 1,578 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.7K/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROVIDE INCREMENTAL FUNDING TO ISSUE WORK AUTHORIZATION #0001 UNDER CONTRACT DTFAWA-09-C-00052 AWARD.

Place of Performance

Location: HERNDON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20170

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $62.6 million to PERATON INC. for work described as: PROVIDE INCREMENTAL FUNDING TO ISSUE WORK AUTHORIZATION #0001 UNDER CONTRACT DTFAWA-09-C-00052 AWARD. Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant increase, suggesting scope expansion or increased service demand. 2. Engineering services are critical for infrastructure projects, indicating ongoing federal investment in this area. 3. The contract's long duration (over 4 years) implies a stable, long-term need for these services. 4. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost efficiency. 5. The contract is a definitive contract, suggesting a firm commitment to the services provided. 6. The contractor, Peraton Inc., has a substantial history with this contract vehicle.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The incremental funding of $62.6 million for this definitive contract, awarded under a Small Business Administration (SBA) set-aside, requires careful evaluation. While the specific services rendered are not detailed, the substantial funding suggests a significant scope of work. Benchmarking this against similar engineering services contracts is challenging without more granular data on the specific tasks performed. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common, can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed diligently, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The contract was competed under SAP (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), which typically implies a competition among a smaller pool of vendors, often for contracts valued below certain thresholds. The number of bidders is not specified, making it difficult to assess the level of competition. While SAP aims for efficiency, it may not always yield the most competitive pricing compared to full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of SAP suggests a balance between procurement efficiency and cost-effectiveness for taxpayers. The actual impact on price discovery depends heavily on the number of responsive bids received.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) benefits from continued engineering support for its operations and infrastructure. Services likely contribute to the maintenance, modernization, or expansion of air traffic control systems and related facilities. The geographic impact is likely national, given the FAA's mandate, though specific project locations are not detailed. The contract supports a workforce of engineers and technical specialists, contributing to employment in the engineering sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector supports a wide range of government functions, particularly in infrastructure development and maintenance. Federal spending in engineering services is substantial, driven by needs in transportation, defense, and public works. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the average contract values and durations for similar engineering support services procured by agencies like the FAA or Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates the contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This means the competition, if any, was open to businesses of all sizes. The lack of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for subcontracting to small businesses are not mandated by the contract terms, though the prime contractor may still engage them. This could limit the direct participation of small businesses in this specific contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracting officers and program managers. They are responsible for monitoring performance, approving invoices, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. The Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General (OIG) may also conduct audits or investigations into the contract's financial management and operational effectiveness to ensure accountability and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

engineering-services, federal-aviation-administration, department-of-transportation, definitive-contract, cost-plus-fixed-fee, competed-under-sap, virginia, peraton-inc, aviation-technology, infrastructure-support

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $62.6 million to PERATON INC.. PROVIDE INCREMENTAL FUNDING TO ISSUE WORK AUTHORIZATION #0001 UNDER CONTRACT DTFAWA-09-C-00052 AWARD.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PERATON INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $62.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-06-08. End: 2013-10-03.

What specific engineering services has Peraton Inc. provided under this contract since its inception in 2009?

The provided data does not detail the specific engineering services rendered under contract DTFAWA-09-C-00052. However, given the contracting agency (Federal Aviation Administration) and the NAICS code for Engineering Services (541330), it is highly probable that the services relate to the design, development, testing, and implementation of aviation systems. This could include work on air traffic control systems, navigation aids, airport infrastructure, communication systems, or related software and hardware. The incremental funding suggests ongoing or expanded requirements over the contract's lifespan, potentially involving system upgrades, maintenance, or new installations critical to air traffic management and safety.

How does the total value of this contract, including all modifications and funding actions, compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by the FAA?

The total value of this contract, with the latest incremental funding bringing it to approximately $62.6 million, needs to be considered in the context of its duration (awarded in 2009, ending in 2013). To compare it effectively with similar FAA engineering contracts, one would need to analyze contracts with similar scopes (e.g., air traffic system support, infrastructure engineering) awarded within a comparable timeframe. Contracts for major system upgrades or long-term support can easily reach tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. Without specific details on the services performed and the contract's final cumulative value, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, $62.6 million over four years for specialized engineering services for a critical agency like the FAA is within a plausible range, though potentially on the lower end for large-scale system development.

What are the primary risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type used here, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as they are reimbursed for allowable expenses plus a predetermined profit (the fee). This can lead to cost overruns if the government does not maintain strong oversight. Mitigation strategies include rigorous government oversight of all incurred costs, detailed audits, clear definition of allowable costs in the contract, and performance metrics that tie the fixed fee to successful completion of milestones or objectives. The FAA contracting officers must diligently review all expenditures to ensure they are reasonable, allocable, and necessary for the contract's performance.

What is the historical spending pattern for this specific contract vehicle (DTFAWA-09-C-00052) since its award in 2009?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded on June 8, 2009, and had an estimated end date of October 3, 2013, with a duration of 1578 days (approximately 4.3 years). The current incremental funding is $62,629,325.45. This suggests that the total obligated amount has increased over time through various funding actions. To understand the full historical spending pattern, one would need to examine all contract modifications and funding actions issued since 2009. This would reveal the pace of spending, any significant increases in funding, and how the total obligated amount evolved towards the current figure, providing insight into the project's lifecycle and the government's commitment.

Given the contract's age and the nature of engineering services, what is the likelihood of scope creep or unfulfilled requirements contributing to the funding increase?

The likelihood of scope creep or unfulfilled requirements contributing to the $62.6 million funding increase is significant, especially for a contract awarded in 2009 and potentially extended or modified over its lifespan. Engineering projects, particularly in complex fields like aviation, often encounter unforeseen technical challenges, evolving regulatory requirements, or changes in operational needs that necessitate adjustments to the original scope. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure can accommodate such changes, but it requires careful management to ensure that any scope expansion is justified, properly documented through contract modifications, and aligns with the government's strategic objectives. Without specific modification details, it's presumed these increases are tied to evolving FAA requirements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesArchitectural, Engineering, and Related ServicesEngineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C.

Address: 12975 WORLDGATE DR, HERNDON, VA, 20170

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $62,641,825

Exercised Options: $62,629,325

Current Obligation: $62,629,325

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline

Start Date: 2009-06-08

Current End Date: 2013-10-03

Potential End Date: 2013-10-03 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2022-10-17

More Contracts from Peraton Inc.

View all Peraton Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Transportation Contracts

View all Department of Transportation contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending