DOT's FAA awarded $85.6M for communications support, with LS Technologies LLC performing 3166 days of service

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $85,647,492 ($85.6M)

Contractor: LS Technologies LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2011-09-12

End Date: 2020-05-13

Contract Duration: 3,166 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.1K/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: IT

Official Description: THIS IS A SUPPORT CONTRACT THAT WILL PROVIDE THE FAA EMERGENCY OPERATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION (AEO-400) (C3 PROGRAM OFFICE) WITH CONTRACTOR EXPERTISE IN THE COMMUNICATIONS FIELD. TAS::69 8107::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22031

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $85.6 million to LS TECHNOLOGIES LLC for work described as: THIS IS A SUPPORT CONTRACT THAT WILL PROVIDE THE FAA EMERGENCY OPERATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION (AEO-400) (C3 PROGRAM OFFICE) WITH CONTRACTOR EXPERTISE IN THE COMMUNICATIONS FIELD. TAS::69 8107::TAS Key points: 1. Contract value of $85.6M over nearly 9 years suggests a significant investment in specialized communications expertise. 2. The contract was competed under SAP, indicating a potentially streamlined but possibly less broad competition than full and open. 3. A Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize contractor efficiency, but requires careful oversight to manage costs. 4. The duration of the contract (3166 days) points to a long-term need for sustained support services. 5. The award to LS Technologies LLC, a single contractor, highlights the importance of specialized capabilities in this niche. 6. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the primary agency, focusing on critical operational and communication functions.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $85.6 million over approximately 8.7 years averages to about $9.8 million annually. This figure needs to be benchmarked against similar support contracts within the FAA or DOT for a comprehensive value assessment. The CPFF structure requires diligent monitoring of costs to ensure they remain reasonable and aligned with the services provided. Without specific performance metrics or comparisons to industry benchmarks for similar services, a definitive value-for-money judgment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

This contract was competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), which typically involves a smaller pool of bidders compared to full and open competition. While SAP aims for efficiency, it may limit the breadth of competition, potentially impacting price discovery. The number of bids received is not specified, but the process suggests a focus on smaller value procurements or specific pre-qualified vendors.

Taxpayer Impact: Competing under SAP may result in less aggressive pricing than a full and open competition, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers if a wider range of vendors could have offered competitive bids.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the FAA's Emergency Operations and Communications Division (AEO-400) and the C3 Program Office, who receive essential contractor expertise. Services delivered include specialized expertise in the communications field, crucial for maintaining operational readiness and effective communication systems. The geographic impact is primarily within the operational sphere of the FAA, supporting national aviation communication infrastructure. Workforce implications include the provision of specialized skills that may supplement or complement government personnel in critical communication roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts can lead to cost overruns if not managed meticulously.
Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) may limit the competitive landscape, potentially affecting optimal pricing.
The long contract duration could lead to vendor lock-in or reduced agility in adapting to evolving communication technologies.

Positive Signals

The contract addresses a specific need for specialized communications expertise within a critical FAA division.
The award to a single entity suggests a focus on specialized capabilities and potentially a streamlined management approach.
The sustained nature of the contract indicates a recognized and ongoing requirement for these services.

Sector Analysis

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operates within the broader transportation and government services sector. This contract for communications support falls under IT services, specifically custom computer programming and related services (NAICS 541511). The market for such services is highly competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized expertise. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing its annual cost to similar IT support contracts within federal agencies or the private sector, considering the specific nature of aviation communications.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits to the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The focus appears to be on acquiring specialized expertise, likely from a firm capable of meeting the contract's requirements, regardless of its size category.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, rigorous financial oversight is crucial to ensure that costs are reasonable and allocable to the contract. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting mechanisms and potentially through the FAA's internal audit processes. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

FAA Communications Systems Support
Aviation IT Services
Department of Transportation IT Contracts
Emergency Operations Support Contracts
Custom Computer Programming Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Limited competition due to Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP).
Long contract duration may reduce flexibility.
Need for robust oversight to ensure value for money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $85.6 million to LS TECHNOLOGIES LLC. THIS IS A SUPPORT CONTRACT THAT WILL PROVIDE THE FAA EMERGENCY OPERATIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION (AEO-400) (C3 PROGRAM OFFICE) WITH CONTRACTOR EXPERTISE IN THE COMMUNICATIONS FIELD. TAS::69 8107::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LS TECHNOLOGIES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $85.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-12. End: 2020-05-13.

What is the track record of LS Technologies LLC in performing similar federal contracts, particularly with the FAA or DOT?

Assessing LS Technologies LLC's track record requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts. This would involve examining contract databases for previous awards, performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS), and any reported issues or successes. Specifically, looking for experience with communications support, IT services, and operations within aviation or similar critical infrastructure sectors would be pertinent. A history of successful, on-time, and within-budget contract completion, especially with complex government agencies like the FAA, would indicate a lower performance risk. Conversely, a pattern of cost overruns, missed deadlines, or negative performance reviews would raise concerns about their capability to fulfill the current contract effectively.

How does the average annual cost of this contract compare to similar FAA or DOT communications support contracts?

The total award of $85.6 million over approximately 8.7 years equates to an average annual cost of roughly $9.8 million. To benchmark this value, one would need to identify comparable contracts within the FAA or DOT that provide similar communications support services, IT expertise, or operational support. Key comparison points would include contract type (e.g., CPFF, FFP), scope of work, duration, and the specific technical requirements. If comparable contracts for similar services are significantly lower in annual cost, it could suggest this contract is priced above market rates. Conversely, if similar contracts are in the same range or higher, it might indicate that the pricing is competitive for the specialized services rendered.

What are the primary risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this specific service, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract is that the contractor may not be sufficiently incentivized to control costs, as the government agrees to pay all allowable costs plus a fixed fee. This can lead to cost overruns if the government's oversight is not rigorous. For communications support services, risks include scope creep, inefficient resource allocation, and potentially inflated labor hours or material costs. Mitigation strategies employed by the FAA would typically involve robust cost accounting standards, detailed review of invoices, regular performance reviews to ensure efficiency, and clear definition of allowable costs. Strong contract management and proactive communication with the contractor are essential to manage these risks effectively and ensure value for money.

What is the historical spending pattern for communications support within the FAA's Emergency Operations and Communications Division (AEO-400)?

Analyzing historical spending for the AEO-400 division requires access to detailed budget and expenditure data over several fiscal years. This would involve identifying all contracts and task orders related to communications support, IT services, and operational expertise within this specific division. Trends in spending, such as increases or decreases over time, could indicate shifts in program priorities, technological advancements, or changes in the reliance on contractor support versus in-house capabilities. Understanding this historical context is crucial for evaluating whether the $85.6 million awarded to LS Technologies LLC represents a consistent investment, a significant increase, or a decrease in funding for these critical functions.

How does the competition level (competed under SAP) potentially impact the quality of services received compared to a full and open competition?

Competing under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) generally involves a smaller pool of potential bidders and may utilize pre-existing contract vehicles or specific solicitations aimed at smaller businesses or specific capabilities. While SAP promotes efficiency for smaller procurements, it can limit the breadth of competition compared to a full and open solicitation. This potentially reduced competition might mean fewer innovative solutions are proposed or that the government does not receive the most advantageous pricing. For specialized services like communications expertise, the impact on quality depends on whether the SAP process effectively identified and selected the most capable vendor. If the chosen vendor under SAP is highly qualified, the quality may be excellent; however, a broader competition could theoretically uncover even better-suited or more cost-effective providers.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Custom Computer Programming Services

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

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: Tetra Tech, Inc.

Address: 2750 PROSPERITY AVE STE 640, FAIRFAX, VA, 22031

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $85,675,456

Exercised Options: $85,675,456

Current Obligation: $85,647,492

Actual Outlays: $7,187,049

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 3

Total Subaward Amount: $23,923,710

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTFAWA10A00213

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline