Dot's FAA Awarded $30M for Tsle Test and Evaluation, With Advanced Sciences and Technologies, LLC As Prime

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,086,902 ($30.1M)

Contractor: Advanced Sciences and Technologies, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2016-03-03

End Date: 2023-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,767 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: STARS FUNDING FOR TSLE TEST AND EVALUATION CONTRACT IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTIC CITY, ATLANTIC County, NEW JERSEY, 08401

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $30.1 million to ADVANCED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC for work described as: STARS FUNDING FOR TSLE TEST AND EVALUATION CONTRACT IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract value of $30M over approximately 7.5 years suggests a moderate annual spend. 2. The contract type is Time and Materials, which can pose cost control risks if not managed closely. 3. Competition was 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating a potentially complex procurement process. 4. The duration of the contract (2767 days) is substantial, requiring sustained oversight. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to Engineering Services, a common sector for federal contracting. 6. The award was a Delivery Order, suggesting it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle or contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $30,008,690.50 over nearly 7.5 years averages to approximately $4 million per year. Without specific performance metrics or deliverables, it's difficult to definitively benchmark value. However, the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type, while flexible, can lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not carefully managed and monitored for efficiency. The absence of detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar T&M contracts for test and evaluation services makes a precise value assessment challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This specific designation suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources may have been excluded for reasons not immediately apparent from the provided data. The number of bidders is not specified, making it difficult to assess the true level of competition. This procurement approach could potentially limit price discovery compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition, as indicated by the procurement method, may have resulted in less downward pressure on pricing, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers than if a wider range of bidders had been involved.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its mission to ensure aviation safety and efficiency through rigorous testing and evaluation. Services delivered include essential test and evaluation activities for aviation systems and technologies. The geographic impact is primarily centered in New Jersey (ST/SN), where the contractor is located. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for engineers and technical specialists within ADVANCED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
The 'Exclusion of Sources' in the competition method raises questions about the breadth of market engagement.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it hard to gauge efficiency and effectiveness.
Long contract duration requires sustained oversight to ensure continued value.

Positive Signals

Award to a single contractor suggests a focused relationship for specific expertise.
The substantial contract value indicates a significant need for these services.
The contract has been active for a considerable period, implying ongoing utility.

Sector Analysis

The Federal Aviation Administration operates within the broader aerospace and defense sector, which heavily relies on specialized engineering and technical services for research, development, testing, and evaluation. This contract for test and evaluation services fits within the Engineering Services (NAICS 541330) category. Spending in this area is critical for maintaining safety standards, developing new aviation technologies, and ensuring the reliability of complex systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other FAA contracts for similar engineering support or looking at industry averages for R&D and testing services within the aerospace sector.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this contract. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans or actual performance with small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award appears minimal, and it does not seem to have been structured to promote small business involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the Time and Materials contract, including monitoring of labor hours, material costs, and adherence to delivery orders. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which provide basic award information. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

FAA Research, Engineering, and Development
Aviation Systems Engineering Support
Aerospace Test and Evaluation Services
Department of Transportation Engineering Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to T&M contract type.
Limited competition may impact price discovery.
Long duration requires sustained oversight.
Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $30.1 million to ADVANCED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. STARS FUNDING FOR TSLE TEST AND EVALUATION CONTRACT IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ADVANCED SCIENCES AND 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 $30.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-03-03. End: 2023-09-30.

What is the specific nature of the 'TSLE Test and Evaluation' services provided under this contract?

The provided data identifies the contract as 'STARS FUNDING FOR TSLE TEST AND EVALUATION CONTRACT IGF::OT::IGF'. While 'TSLE' is not explicitly defined, in the context of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and engineering services, it likely refers to a specific program or system requiring testing and evaluation. Given the FAA's mission, TSLE could potentially stand for 'Technology, Systems, Logistics, and Evaluation' or a similar acronym related to aviation safety, air traffic management systems, or new aircraft technologies. The 'STARS' funding likely refers to the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System, a critical component of air traffic control. Therefore, the services probably involve rigorous testing, validation, and evaluation of the STARS system or related aviation technologies to ensure operational readiness, safety, and compliance with regulatory standards.

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type compare to other contract types for similar engineering services in terms of cost-effectiveness?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not clearly defined or is expected to change, offering flexibility. However, they are generally considered less cost-effective for the government compared to fixed-price contracts because the contractor is reimbursed for actual labor hours and material costs, plus a fixed fee or labor-hour rate. This structure can incentivize longer project durations or higher labor rates if not managed stringently. For engineering services where requirements are well-defined, fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts typically offer better cost control and predictability for the government. The FAA's use of T&M here suggests either a highly evolving scope or a reliance on the contractor's expertise to define and execute the work, necessitating robust oversight to prevent cost overruns and ensure value.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement method?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method implies that while the initial intent was broad competition, specific sources were intentionally excluded. This exclusion could stem from various reasons, such as prior performance issues, specific technical requirements that only a limited number of firms could meet, or national security concerns. The primary risk is that by excluding potential bidders, the government may limit the pool of qualified offerors, potentially leading to less competitive pricing and reduced innovation. It can also raise concerns about fairness and transparency if the rationale for exclusion is not clearly documented and justified. This method requires careful justification to ensure it serves the government's best interest and does not unduly restrict competition.

What is the track record of ADVANCED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC with federal contracts, particularly with the FAA?

ADVANCED SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES, LLC has been awarded this specific contract valued at over $30 million by the FAA for test and evaluation services. Analyzing their broader federal contracting history would require accessing comprehensive databases like FPDS. A review of past performance would typically examine factors such as on-time delivery, quality of work, adherence to budget, and any past performance issues or disputes. For this particular contract, the duration of nearly 7.5 years suggests a sustained working relationship. Without further data on their overall contract portfolio, it's difficult to provide a definitive assessment of their track record, but the significant value and duration of this FAA award indicate a level of capability and trust.

How does the annual spending on this contract compare to typical engineering services spending within the FAA?

This contract averages approximately $4 million per year ($30M / ~7.5 years). To benchmark this against typical FAA spending for engineering services, one would need to analyze the FAA's overall budget allocation for engineering support contracts, particularly those falling under NAICS code 541330. This would involve looking at the total value and number of similar contracts awarded annually. If the FAA procures hundreds of millions or billions in engineering services, $4 million annually for a specific test and evaluation function might represent a moderate or even small portion. Conversely, if this is a niche service, it could represent significant spending. A comparative analysis requires access to broader FAA procurement data and industry spending trends.

What are the potential implications of the contract's long duration (2767 days) on program management and oversight?

A contract duration of 2767 days (approximately 7.5 years) presents both opportunities and challenges for program management and oversight. On the positive side, it allows for long-term planning, stability for the contractor, and the potential for deep institutional knowledge to develop. However, it also necessitates sustained vigilance from the government. Key risks include potential scope creep, the contractor's workforce potentially becoming entrenched, and the risk that technology or requirements may evolve significantly over the contract period, making the original scope outdated. Effective oversight requires continuous monitoring of performance, regular reviews, and proactive management to ensure the contract remains aligned with current FAA needs and delivers value throughout its lifespan.

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

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 20 E TAUNTON STE 301, BERLIN, NJ, 08009

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $38,213,680

Exercised Options: $30,086,902

Current Obligation: $30,086,902

Actual Outlays: $12,938,281

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTFAWA15D00028

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline