DoD's PEO Carriers Support contract awarded to CACI, Inc. for over $146M over 10 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $146,706,300 ($146.7M)

Contractor: CACI, Inc. - Federal

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-01-14

End Date: 2020-01-13

Contract Duration: 3,651 days

Daily Burn Rate: $40.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20003

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $146.7 million to CACI, INC. - FEDERAL for work described as: PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee, which can incentivize cost savings but also carries inherent risk. 3. The duration of the contract is substantial at over 10 years, indicating a long-term need for these services. 4. The contract was awarded to a single entity, CACI, Inc. - Federal, for the entirety of its duration. 5. The contract falls under Engineering Services, a broad category with potential for significant cost variability. 6. The contract was awarded as a Delivery Order, suggesting it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle or framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the engineering services provided. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure means the final cost is variable and dependent on performance and cost control. While CACI is a large, established federal contractor, the lack of detailed performance metrics or comparison to similar sole-source engineering support contracts makes a definitive value assessment difficult. The significant duration and total value suggest a substantial need, but the CPIF model requires careful oversight to ensure cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited and evaluated. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific award. While full and open competition is generally preferred for price discovery, the specific number of bidders (3) is on the lower side for a contract of this magnitude and duration, which could potentially limit the downward pressure on pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process, even with a limited number of bidders, is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through a competitive process. However, the ultimate benefit to taxpayers depends on the effectiveness of the evaluation criteria and the negotiation of terms.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from specialized engineering services to support its carrier operations. This contract likely supports the maintenance, modernization, or development of critical naval assets. The services provided are essential for the operational readiness and effectiveness of the U.S. Navy's carrier fleet. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around naval bases and operational areas where carrier support is required. The contract supports a significant portion of CACI's federal business, potentially impacting its workforce and resource allocation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly, as the contractor is reimbursed for costs plus a fee that can increase with performance.
The long duration of the contract (over 10 years) increases the risk of scope creep or evolving requirements that may not be optimally priced from the outset.
Limited competition (3 bidders) for a contract of this size and duration might indicate a less competitive market or specialized requirements, potentially leading to higher costs than if more bidders were involved.
The specific nature of 'PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT' is broad and could encompass a wide range of services, making it difficult to assess value without granular detail on deliverables.
The contract is a Delivery Order, implying it might be part of a larger IDIQ vehicle, which can sometimes obscure the true competitive landscape and total spending.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, which is a positive indicator for achieving competitive pricing and best value.
CACI, Inc. - Federal is a large and experienced federal contractor with a significant track record, suggesting a capacity to handle complex requirements.
The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure, if well-defined with appropriate incentive targets, can align contractor and government interests towards achieving specific performance and cost goals.
The contract duration suggests a stable, long-term requirement, allowing for potential efficiencies and relationship building between the government and contractor.
The contract falls under Engineering Services, a critical domain for defense, indicating support for essential national security functions.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a broad category encompassing design, development, and technical consulting. The federal government, particularly the Department of Defense, is a major consumer of these services for complex systems like naval carriers. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, characterized by large prime contractors and a network of subcontractors. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific technical scope, but large, long-term engineering support contracts for major defense platforms often run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. Given the prime contractor is CACI, Inc. - Federal, a large business, it is possible that subcontracting opportunities may exist for small businesses within the scope of the engineering services. However, without specific subcontracting plans or goals mandated within the contract, the extent of small business participation is uncertain and would require further investigation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Navy's Program Executive Office (PEO) for Carriers and the contracting officers responsible for managing the contract. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure necessitates robust financial and performance monitoring to ensure the government receives value and that costs are controlled. Transparency would be enhanced through regular reporting requirements from the contractor and potential audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the Inspector General.

Related Government Programs

Naval Ship Systems Engineering Support
Defense Engineering and Technical Services
Aerospace and Defense Support Services
Program Management Support Services
Naval Aviation Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration increases risk of evolving requirements and potential cost overruns.
Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) requires diligent oversight to ensure value for money.
Limited number of bidders (3) may indicate reduced competition impacting price discovery.
Broad scope of 'Engineering Services' necessitates detailed monitoring of deliverables.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $146.7 million to CACI, INC. - FEDERAL. PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CACI, INC. - FEDERAL.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $146.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-01-14. End: 2020-01-13.

What is the specific scope of 'PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT' and how has it evolved over the contract's lifespan?

The 'PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT' contract likely encompasses a wide array of engineering and technical services essential for the lifecycle management of aircraft carriers. This could include systems engineering, design, integration, testing, maintenance planning, modernization efforts, and program management support. Given the contract's duration of over 10 years (January 2010 to January 2020), the scope has almost certainly evolved to address changing technological landscapes, new threats, and the specific needs of the carrier fleet, such as upgrades for new aircraft types or extending the service life of existing vessels. Detailed statements of work (SOWs) for each delivery order would provide granular insight into the specific tasks performed and their evolution over time.

How does the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure compare to other contract types for similar engineering services, and what were the realized incentives?

Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts reimburse the contractor for allowable costs plus a negotiated fee that is adjusted based on performance against pre-defined targets (e.g., cost, schedule, performance). Compared to Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), CPIF aims to incentivize efficiency. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), CPIF is better suited for R&D or services with high uncertainty where costs are difficult to predict. For complex engineering services like carrier support, CPIF can be appropriate if well-managed. However, realizing the 'incentive' aspect requires clear, measurable targets and effective government oversight. Without access to the specific incentive targets and the final fee adjustments for this contract, it's impossible to definitively say if the incentives were effectively realized or if the government achieved optimal value beyond cost reimbursement.

What was the total spending trend over the 10-year period of the contract, and were there any significant spikes or dips?

The total award amount for this contract is $146,706,300.37 over approximately 10 years. To understand the spending trend, one would need to examine the individual delivery orders issued under this contract and their respective values and durations. A significant spike or dip in spending could indicate major program milestones, shifts in requirements, or changes in funding availability. For instance, a large spike might correspond to a major modernization effort for a carrier, while a dip could reflect a period of reduced activity or a shift in priorities. Analyzing the annual spending data would reveal the contract's financial trajectory and operational tempo over its lifespan.

What is CACI, Inc. - Federal's track record with similar large-scale, long-duration engineering support contracts for the Department of Defense?

CACI, Inc. - Federal has a substantial track record of performing large-scale, long-duration engineering and IT support contracts for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. They are a major player in the federal contracting space, often winning significant awards in areas such as systems engineering, IT modernization, intelligence analysis, and program management. Their experience with complex defense programs suggests they possess the organizational capacity, technical expertise, and security clearances necessary for contracts like PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT. However, the success and value derived from any specific contract depend heavily on the details of the SOW, the government's oversight, and the specific performance metrics achieved.

How does the average annual cost per year for this contract compare to other major engineering support contracts for naval platforms?

The average annual cost for this contract is approximately $14.67 million ($146.7M / 10 years). Comparing this to other major engineering support contracts for naval platforms requires access to data on similar contracts, which is often proprietary or not publicly aggregated in a directly comparable format. Factors like the specific platform (e.g., carrier vs. submarine vs. destroyer), the scope of services (e.g., new design vs. sustainment vs. modernization), and the contract type significantly influence costs. Generally, carrier-related contracts tend to be among the largest due to the complexity and scale of these vessels. Without a standardized benchmark or a database of comparable contracts with detailed scope definitions, a precise comparison is difficult, but $14.67M annually for comprehensive support of a major naval platform is within a plausible range for significant engineering services.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) typically associated with PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT contracts, and how is performance measured?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for contracts like PEO CARRIERS SUPPORT typically revolve around technical performance, schedule adherence, cost control (especially relevant for CPIF), and responsiveness. Specific KPIs might include: successful completion of design reviews, on-time delivery of technical documentation, achievement of system performance specifications, reduction in maintenance downtime, successful integration of new systems, and adherence to budget targets. Performance measurement is usually conducted through contractor self-reporting, government inspections and testing, milestone reviews, and formal evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS). The effectiveness of performance measurement hinges on clearly defined, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) KPIs within the contract's SOW and delivery orders.

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

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N0002409R3369

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CACI International Inc

Address: 14370 NEWBROOK DRIVE, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $432,803,616

Exercised Options: $211,128,781

Current Obligation: $146,706,300

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017804D4030

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline