DOT's $20M contract for project management oversight services awarded non-competitively to David Evans and Associates, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,073,727 ($20.1M)

Contractor: David Evans and Associates, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2009-09-15

End Date: 2014-09-14

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.0K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR THE LOWER MANHATTAN RECOVERY OFFICE (LMRO). PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE IS FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 14, 2014.

Place of Performance

Location: PORTLAND, MULTNOMAH County, OREGON, 97201

State: Oregon Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $20.1 million to DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. for work described as: PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR THE LOWER MANHATTAN RECOVERY OFFICE (LMRO). PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE IS FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 14, 2014. Key points: 1. Contract awarded non-competitively, raising questions about price discovery and potential for overpayment. 2. Services provided are administrative management and general management consulting, a broad category. 3. The contract duration of five years suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. Performance period spans from 2009 to 2014, indicating historical spending patterns. 5. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost overruns. 6. No small business set-aside was applied, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award amount of approximately $20 million over five years for project management oversight services warrants scrutiny, especially given the non-competitive award. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while offering flexibility, can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed rigorously, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee. A comparison to similar contracts for project management oversight in other federal agencies or for comparable projects would be necessary to assess if the pricing is reasonable.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order. This means that the agency did not solicit bids from multiple contractors. The specific justification for a sole-source award is not provided in the data, but typically such awards are made when only one contractor possesses the unique capabilities or qualifications required for the service, or in cases of urgent need. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for price discovery through a bidding process, potentially leading to a higher price than if multiple firms had competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competition. Without competing offers, the government lacked leverage to negotiate the best possible price, potentially resulting in funds being spent less efficiently.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration, receiving project management oversight for their initiatives. The services delivered include administrative management and general management consulting, crucial for the effective execution of complex projects. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the Lower Manhattan Recovery Office (LMRO) projects, though the specific location of David Evans and Associates, Inc. (Oregon) suggests a remote or distributed oversight model. Workforce implications include the employment of consultants and project managers by David Evans and Associates, Inc. to fulfill the contract requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price transparency and potential savings.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure may incentivize higher costs if not closely monitored.
Lack of small business participation noted, as the contract was not set aside.
Long contract duration (5 years) increases exposure to potential cost escalations over time.

Positive Signals

Contract provides essential project management oversight, contributing to program success.
David Evans and Associates, Inc. is a known entity, suggesting some level of established capability.
The contract duration indicates a sustained need and potentially a stable working relationship.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under administrative management and general management consulting services (NAICS code 541611). This sector is characterized by a wide range of firms offering expertise in business strategy, operational efficiency, and project management. The market size for management consulting services is substantial, with significant government spending allocated to these areas to support complex federal programs. This specific contract appears to be for specialized project management oversight, likely related to recovery or infrastructure projects, fitting within the broader consulting services landscape.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does the data indicate any subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract were likely limited. The absence of a small business focus in this award does not necessarily reflect the overall small business utilization by David Evans and Associates, Inc. or the Federal Transit Administration, but it does represent a missed opportunity for direct engagement with the small business ecosystem on this particular contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would primarily reside within the Department of Transportation and the Federal Transit Administration. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight and auditing would be expected to ensure that costs are allowable and reasonable. Transparency would depend on the agency's reporting practices and any public disclosures made. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Transit Administration Grants
Department of Transportation Project Management Initiatives
Disaster Recovery and Resilience Programs
Infrastructure Project Oversight Contracts

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $20.1 million to DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.. PROJECT MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT SERVICES FOR THE LOWER MANHATTAN RECOVERY OFFICE (LMRO). PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE IS FROM SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 14, 2014.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-15. End: 2014-09-14.

What is the specific justification for the non-competitive award of this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded as a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER'. While the specific justification is not detailed, federal procurement regulations allow for non-competitive awards under certain circumstances, such as when only one responsible source can satisfy the agency's needs, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. For a contract of this magnitude and duration, a detailed justification would typically be required, outlining why full and open competition was not feasible. Without this justification, it is difficult to assess the appropriateness of the sole-source award and its potential impact on cost and value.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type compare to other pricing arrangements for similar services?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This contrasts with fixed-price contracts, where the price is set regardless of actual costs, and cost-reimbursement contracts (without a fixed fee) where profit is a percentage of costs. CPFF contracts are often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or when there is uncertainty in the cost of performance. While they offer flexibility, they can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs, as the fee remains constant. For project management oversight, a firm-fixed-price contract might be preferred if the scope is well-defined, potentially offering better value. However, if the project's nature is highly dynamic, CPFF might be deemed necessary, requiring robust government oversight to control costs.

What is the track record of David Evans and Associates, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly in project management oversight?

David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) is a consulting engineering firm that has a history of performing work for federal agencies. While the provided data focuses on this single contract, a broader analysis of DEA's federal contract history would reveal their experience and performance across various projects and agencies. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) could indicate the volume and types of contracts awarded to DEA, their past performance ratings, and any significant issues or successes. For this specific contract, the fact that it was awarded non-competitively suggests the agency may have had prior positive experience with DEA or deemed them uniquely qualified. However, a comprehensive assessment would require examining their broader federal contracting portfolio.

What are the potential risks associated with a five-year, non-competitive Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract for project management oversight?

A five-year, non-competitive Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract presents several potential risks. Firstly, the non-competitive nature means the government did not benefit from a bidding process that could drive down prices and ensure the most capable contractor was selected. Secondly, the CPFF structure, while providing flexibility, can lead to cost escalation if the contractor's spending is not rigorously monitored and controlled by the government. Over five years, even small inefficiencies can accumulate into significant overspending. Thirdly, the long duration increases the risk of scope creep or changes in project needs that might not be optimally managed under the original contract terms. Finally, a lack of competition might reduce the contractor's incentive to innovate or seek cost-saving measures throughout the contract period.

How does this contract's spending compare to other federal spending on management and consulting services?

The approximately $20 million awarded over five years for project management oversight services represents a moderate level of spending within the broader federal contracting landscape for management and consulting. Federal agencies collectively spend billions annually on these types of services, covering a vast array of needs from strategic planning to IT consulting. To contextualize this specific contract, one would need to compare it against benchmarks for similar project management oversight contracts, considering factors like project complexity, duration, and the specific agency. For instance, large-scale infrastructure projects or complex IT system implementations often involve significantly higher consulting expenditures. This contract, while substantial, is likely part of a larger portfolio of services supporting specific agency objectives, such as those related to recovery efforts in Lower Manhattan.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: David Evans Enterprises Inc (UEI: 079544806)

Address: 2100 SW RIVER PKWY, PORTLAND, OR, 97201

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,275,707

Exercised Options: $22,275,707

Current Obligation: $20,073,727

Actual Outlays: $-103,929

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTFT6009D00008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline