DoD awards $14.1M task order to Guidehouse Inc. for management consulting services
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $14,117,227 ($14.1M)
Contractor: Guidehouse Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2023-06-21
End Date: 2026-03-20
Contract Duration: 1,003 days
Daily Burn Rate: $14.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: PKS-HILL-BOOKER-FA701423STS37 TASK ORDER
Place of Performance
Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20330
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $14.1 million to GUIDEHOUSE INC. for work described as: PKS-HILL-BOOKER-FA701423STS37 TASK ORDER Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract is a delivery order under a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs by establishing a set price for services. 4. The duration of the task order is approximately 2.75 years. 5. The primary service category is Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. 6. The contract is managed by the Department of the Air Force within the Department of Defense.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract's value of $14.1 million for management consulting services over nearly three years appears reasonable within the context of federal consulting engagements. Benchmarking against similar contracts for administrative and management consulting services would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an effort to ensure cost predictability for the government.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This task order was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific task order. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of innovative solutions.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and improve the quality of services received.
Public Impact
The Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Air Force, is the primary beneficiary of these consulting services. The services are expected to support administrative management and general management functions within the Air Force. The contract is geographically located in the District of Columbia. The contract is likely to impact a workforce involved in management and administrative roles within the Air Force.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for scope creep if requirements are not clearly defined and managed.
- Reliance on a single contractor for critical management consulting services could pose a risk if performance falters.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust selection process.
- Firm fixed-price contract type helps manage cost certainty.
- The contractor, Guidehouse Inc., is a known entity in the federal consulting space.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically management consulting. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services, utilizing them for a wide range of functions from strategic planning to operational efficiency improvements. The market for federal management consulting is substantial, with numerous firms competing for contracts across various agencies. This specific award represents a portion of the broader spending on consulting services aimed at enhancing government operations.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit information regarding small business subcontracting requirements. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless Guidehouse Inc. voluntarily includes small businesses in its subcontracting plan. Further investigation into subcontracting goals would be necessary to fully assess the impact.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Air Force. Performance monitoring, adherence to contract terms, and quality assurance are key oversight functions. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Management and Financial Consulting, Acquisition and Technology Services
- Professional Services
- Defense Management Consulting
Risk Flags
- Potential for contractor performance issues.
- Risk of not achieving desired strategic outcomes.
- Dependency on contractor expertise.
Tags
department-of-defense, department-of-the-air-force, management-consulting, administrative-management, general-management-consulting-services, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, district-of-columbia, guidehouse-inc, professional-services, federal-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $14.1 million to GUIDEHOUSE INC.. PKS-HILL-BOOKER-FA701423STS37 TASK ORDER
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GUIDEHOUSE INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $14.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2023-06-21. End: 2026-03-20.
What is Guidehouse Inc.'s track record with the federal government, particularly the Department of Defense?
Guidehouse Inc. has a significant track record of performing contracts with various U.S. federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. They specialize in a range of services such as management consulting, technology solutions, and financial services. Their past performance often includes work related to defense modernization, financial management, and operational improvements. Analyzing their award history and past performance evaluations within the DoD would provide further insight into their reliability and expertise for this specific task order. The company has secured numerous contracts across different branches of the military and civilian agencies, indicating a broad base of experience and established relationships within the federal sector.
How does the $14.1 million value compare to similar management consulting contracts awarded by the Air Force?
The $14.1 million value for this task order, spanning approximately 2.75 years, is within a common range for significant management consulting engagements within the federal government. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to benchmark against contracts for similar services (e.g., administrative management, general management consulting) awarded by the Department of the Air Force or other DoD components during a comparable timeframe. Factors such as the specific scope of work, the level of expertise required, and the duration significantly influence contract value. Without direct access to a detailed comparison database for identical services and durations, it's challenging to definitively state if this represents exceptional value, but it does not appear to be an outlier based on general knowledge of federal consulting expenditures.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract for the Department of Defense?
Key risks for the Department of Defense in this contract include potential performance issues if Guidehouse Inc. fails to deliver the expected quality or timeliness of consulting services. There's also a risk of cost overruns if the firm fixed-price contract is not managed effectively, although this type of contract is designed to mitigate that. Another risk is the potential for a lack of knowledge transfer or dependency on the contractor, which could create long-term reliance. Furthermore, if the consulting recommendations are not effectively implemented or do not yield the desired strategic outcomes, the return on investment could be suboptimal. Ensuring clear performance metrics and robust oversight are crucial to mitigating these risks.
What is the expected effectiveness of these management consulting services in improving Air Force operations?
The expected effectiveness hinges on the clarity of the defined objectives for the consulting services and the Air Force's commitment to implementing the recommendations. If the consulting engagement is well-scoped to address specific operational challenges or strategic goals within the Air Force, and if Guidehouse Inc. provides actionable and relevant insights, the services can be highly effective. This could lead to improved efficiency, cost savings, enhanced decision-making, or better resource allocation. However, effectiveness is not solely determined by the contractor; the Air Force's internal capacity to absorb and act upon the advice is equally critical. Without specific details on the consulting scope, a definitive assessment of effectiveness is speculative.
How has federal spending on management and general management consulting services trended over the past five years?
Federal spending on management and general management consulting services has generally shown an upward trend over the past five years, driven by agencies' needs for expertise in areas such as digital transformation, cybersecurity, strategic planning, and operational efficiency. Agencies often turn to external consultants to navigate complex challenges, implement new technologies, and improve service delivery. While specific figures fluctuate annually based on budget allocations and emerging priorities, the overall demand for these services remains robust. Factors like evolving national security threats, healthcare system demands, and infrastructure initiatives also contribute to sustained or increased spending in this category.
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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Peraton Technology Services Inc.
Address: 1676 INTERNATIONAL DR STE 800, MC LEAN, VA, 22102
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $16,284,470
Exercised Options: $14,784,570
Current Obligation: $14,117,227
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: FA701420D0004
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2023-06-21
Current End Date: 2026-03-20
Potential End Date: 2026-03-20 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-12-12
More Contracts from Guidehouse Inc.
- THE Purpose of This Requirement for Grants Program Solutions and IT Support Services IS to Provide Efficient and Effective Grant, Financial, and Contract Management Services, IT Solutions, and Support to the Grantsolutions and ITS Partners — $403.1M (Department of the Interior)
- Icam to From 09/08/2022 - 09/07/2023 — $119.1M (Department of Justice)
- Appliance Standards Analysis and Regulatory Support Services — $114.6M (Department of Energy)
- Appliance Standards Analysis and Regulatory Support Service (asarss) — $103.5M (Department of Energy)
- Audit Infrastructure Support Services — $89.8M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)