General Dynamics IT's $90.8M contract for SMO support shows long-term engagement with EPA

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $90,824,436 ($90.8M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2006-06-20

End Date: 2014-03-19

Contract Duration: 2,829 days

Daily Burn Rate: $32.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE (SMO) SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: CHANTILLY, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20151

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $90.8 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC. for work described as: SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE (SMO) SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract duration of 2829 days suggests a sustained need for services. 2. The cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing structure may incentivize cost overruns. 3. Full and open competition indicates a potentially competitive bidding process. 4. The contract's focus on logistics consulting aligns with EPA's operational needs. 5. Performance context is crucial to assess if the fixed fee remained appropriate over the contract's lifespan. 6. Sector positioning within professional services highlights the demand for specialized support.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of over $90 million over nearly 8 years represents a significant investment by the EPA. Benchmarking this against similar management support contracts is challenging without more granular data on the specific services rendered. However, the duration and total value suggest a substantial, long-term relationship. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure warrants scrutiny, as it can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. This typically fosters price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government. The fact that it was a definitive contract awarded to a single entity implies that General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. was selected as the best value offeror after a competitive process.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government receives services at a price reflecting market conditions and vendor capabilities, rather than being limited to a single provider's offering.

Public Impact

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benefits from sustained management and operational support. Services delivered likely include process optimization, logistics, and administrative support critical to EPA's mission. The geographic impact is primarily within the EPA's operational areas, likely concentrated in Virginia where the contractor is located. Workforce implications may include the employment of consultants and support staff by General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can lead to higher costs if not carefully managed.
Long contract durations may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing needs or market conditions.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess value for money retrospectively.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Sustained contract award indicates contractor reliability and EPA satisfaction over time.
The contract supports critical EPA functions, demonstrating alignment with agency priorities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically logistics and process consulting. This sector is characterized by a high degree of specialization and is crucial for government agencies managing complex operations. The market size for such services is substantial, with numerous firms competing for federal contracts. This specific contract represents a significant portion of spending within its niche for the EPA.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary focus was on full and open competition. While General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. may utilize small businesses for subcontracting, there is no explicit requirement or indication of a small business set-aside in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award was made to a large business.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Environmental Protection Agency's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be embedded within the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

EPA Management and Support Services
Federal Logistics Consulting Contracts
Professional Services Contracts
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF structure
Lack of specific performance metrics in summary data
Long contract duration may limit adaptability

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $90.8 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC.. SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE (SMO) SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $90.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-06-20. End: 2014-03-19.

What specific services did General Dynamics Information Technology, Inc. provide under this contract?

The contract description indicates 'SAMPLE MANAGEMENT OFFICE (SMO) SUPPORT' and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541614 points to 'Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services.' This suggests that GDIT provided expertise in optimizing EPA's internal processes, managing its supply chain and distribution networks, and offering general management consulting. Specific deliverables would have been detailed in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), likely encompassing process analysis, efficiency improvements, logistical planning, and potentially administrative support functions for various EPA offices or projects. Without the SOW, the precise nature of the support remains generalized.

How does the $90.8 million contract value compare to other EPA spending on similar services?

Comparing the $90.8 million value requires context on the EPA's overall budget and spending patterns for management and logistics consulting. Over its nearly 8-year duration (2829 days), this represents an average annual expenditure of approximately $11.35 million. This figure needs to be benchmarked against the total EPA budget and its allocation to support services. For instance, if the EPA spends billions annually, this contract might represent a smaller, specialized portion. Conversely, if similar contracts are typically in the low millions, this contract appears substantial. A comprehensive analysis would involve comparing it to other contracts awarded for SMO support or logistics consulting by the EPA and other agencies of similar size and scope.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude and duration?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract is that the government may end up paying more than necessary. While the 'fixed fee' provides some predictability, the 'cost plus' portion means the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs incurred. If costs escalate beyond initial projections, the total contract price increases. For a contract of this size ($90.8M) and long duration (nearly 8 years), there's a heightened risk of cost creep if cost controls are not rigorously enforced by the EPA. Additionally, the contractor may have less incentive to control costs aggressively compared to a firm-fixed-price contract, potentially leading to inefficiencies or less value for taxpayer money if oversight is lax.

What does the 'full and open competition' designation imply about the contractor selection process?

The 'full and open competition' designation signifies that the EPA followed federal acquisition regulations designed to ensure maximum practicable competition. This means that all qualified responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid or proposal. The process likely involved issuing a solicitation, evaluating proposals based on pre-defined criteria (which could include technical approach, past performance, and price), and awarding the contract to the offeror providing the best value to the government. This approach is intended to prevent favoritism, encourage innovation, and secure competitive pricing, ultimately benefiting taxpayers by ensuring the government isn't limited to a single source.

How has EPA's spending on logistics and process consulting evolved over time, and does this contract fit historical patterns?

Analyzing EPA's historical spending on logistics and process consulting requires access to historical contract data beyond this single award. This $90.8 million contract, awarded in 2006 and ending in 2014, represents a significant investment during that period. To understand evolution, one would need to examine spending trends before and after this contract, as well as compare it to other similar contracts awarded by the EPA. Factors like changes in agency priorities, regulatory environments, and the availability of commercial solutions could influence spending patterns. This contract's long duration suggests a consistent, long-term need for such services within the EPA during its term.

What is the significance of the 'Definitive Contract' award type in this context?

A 'Definitive Contract' is a standard type of contract used for procurements where the price is determined and agreed upon at the outset, or where specific terms and conditions are finalized. In this case, it was awarded under full and open competition, meaning GDIT was selected through a competitive process. The 'Definitive Contract' designation, coupled with the 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) pricing structure, indicates that while the overall scope and objectives were defined, the final cost would be based on actual allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. This contrasts with simpler contract types like purchase orders or basic agreements, signifying a more complex and substantial procurement.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Process, Physical Distribution, and Logistics Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Community and Regional Development R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: PRHQ0513020

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Csra LLC (UEI: 080011988)

Address: 15000 CONFERENCE CENTER DR, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $100,030,395

Exercised Options: $100,030,395

Current Obligation: $90,824,436

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline