Air Force awards $109.5M for engineering support, with a significant portion for R&D services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $109,512,535 ($109.5M)

Contractor: Credence Management Solutions Limited Liability Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-02-08

End Date: 2026-06-30

Contract Duration: 873 days

Daily Burn Rate: $125.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: SCAT 1 ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (EPASS) IN SUPPORT OF NON-PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PEO) DIRECTORATES AND RAPID SUSTAINMENT OFFICE IN THE AIR FORCE LIFE CYLE MANAGEMENT CENTER (AFLCMC) FRANKENCUTTERS

Place of Performance

Location: MCLEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $109.5 million to CREDENCE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY for work described as: SCAT 1 ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (EPASS) IN SUPPORT OF NON-PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PEO) DIRECTORATES AND RAPID SUSTAINMENT OFFICE IN THE AIR FORCE LIFE CYLE MANAGEMENT CENTER (AFLCMC) FRANKENCUTTERS Key points: 1. Contract focuses on specialized engineering and administrative support for Air Force PEO directorates. 2. A substantial portion of the contract value is allocated to Research and Development activities. 3. The contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a competitive process. 4. Performance period extends over 873 days, suggesting a medium-term engagement. 5. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost control but requires careful oversight. 6. The contractor, Credence Management Solutions LLC, is tasked with supporting critical Air Force sustainment and development efforts.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $109.5 million for engineering and R&D support appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering support contracts within the Department of Defense would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates close monitoring of costs to ensure efficiency and prevent overruns, but it allows for flexibility in R&D where exact costs can be unpredictable.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This suggests that while the initial solicitation may have had some exclusions, the final award was made after a broad competitive process. The presence of two bidders indicates a degree of competition, which is generally positive for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers.

Taxpayer Impact: This competitive approach is beneficial for taxpayers as it helps to drive down costs and ensure that the selected contractor offers the best value for the services required.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are Air Force Program Executive Officer (PEO) directorates and the Rapid Sustainment Office, receiving critical engineering and administrative support. Services delivered include engineering expertise, administrative support, and research and development activities crucial for Air Force modernization and sustainment. The geographic impact is primarily within the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center's operational areas, likely concentrated in Virginia where the contractor is based. Workforce implications include the potential for skilled engineering and administrative professionals to be employed on this contract, supporting the Air Force's mission.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts require diligent oversight to manage costs effectively and prevent potential overruns.
The 'after exclusion of sources' aspect of the competition warrants understanding the rationale behind the initial exclusions to ensure no viable sources were unfairly omitted.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair bidding process.
The contract supports critical Air Force sustainment and development, aligning with strategic defense objectives.
The duration of the contract (873 days) provides stability for both the contractor and the supported Air Force units.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The market for engineering and administrative support services for defense agencies is substantial, with numerous firms competing for these types of contracts. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) is a major procurer of such services, aiming to leverage external expertise for program management and technical support. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large engineering support contracts awarded by the DoD to assess cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The contract indicates that small business participation was not a primary set-aside consideration (ss: false, sb: false). While this specific contract may not directly benefit small businesses through set-asides, the prime contractor, Credence Management Solutions LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of subcontracting to small businesses and its impact on the broader small business ecosystem supporting the defense sector.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract will likely be managed by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC). Accountability measures will be tied to performance metrics and adherence to the contract's cost and schedule requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific details of cost performance may be less public. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) Support Services
Department of Defense Engineering Support Contracts
Research and Development Services for Defense
Rapid Sustainment Office Support

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires robust oversight.
Potential for scope creep in R&D activities.
Dependence on contractor's ability to recruit and retain specialized engineering talent.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $109.5 million to CREDENCE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. SCAT 1 ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (EPASS) IN SUPPORT OF NON-PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PEO) DIRECTORATES AND RAPID SUSTAINMENT OFFICE IN THE AIR FORCE LIFE CYLE MANAGEMENT CENTER (AFLCMC) FRANKENCUTTERS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CREDENCE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY.

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 $109.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-02-08. End: 2026-06-30.

What is the specific breakdown of funds allocated to Research and Development versus general engineering and administrative support?

The provided data does not offer a specific breakdown of funds between Research and Development (R&D) and general engineering/administrative support. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715, 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology),' suggests a significant R&D component. However, the contract description, 'SCAT 1 ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (EPASS) IN SUPPORT OF NON-PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER (PEO) DIRECTORATES AND RAPID SUSTAINMENT OFFICE,' implies a broader scope. To determine the exact allocation, one would need to review the contract's statement of work, line item details, and potentially the contractor's cost proposals. Without this granular data, it's challenging to quantify the precise R&D investment versus support services.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for similar R&D and engineering support services?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are common for R&D and complex services where the final cost is uncertain but the scope is relatively well-defined. In CPFF, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. This contrasts with Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), which adjusts the fee based on performance against targets, or Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which offers the most cost certainty for the government but places risk on the contractor. For R&D, CPFF allows flexibility to explore different approaches without the contractor bearing the full financial risk of failure. However, it requires robust government oversight to control costs, as the contractor has less incentive to minimize expenses compared to FFP. Compared to CPIF, CPFF offers less direct incentive for cost efficiency but can be simpler to administer. For routine engineering support, FFP might be preferred if the scope is highly predictable.

What is Credence Management Solutions LLC's track record with similar large-scale engineering and R&D support contracts within the Department of Defense?

Credence Management Solutions LLC has a history of performing various support services for the Department of Defense. While specific details on their track record with large-scale R&D and engineering support contracts of this magnitude require deeper investigation into contract databases (e.g., FPDS), their presence as a prime contractor on a $109.5 million award suggests they possess the capability and experience to manage such complex engagements. Analyzing their past performance ratings, past performance questionnaires from previous awards, and any documented issues or successes on similar contracts would provide a comprehensive view of their capabilities and reliability in delivering engineering and R&D support.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate the contractor's performance under this EPASS contract?

The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this EPASS contract are not detailed in the provided summary data. However, typical KPIs for engineering and administrative support services contracts often include metrics related to timeliness of deliverables, quality of work (e.g., accuracy, completeness), responsiveness to requests, adherence to budget, and overall customer satisfaction. For R&D components, KPIs might also focus on milestones achieved, technical progress, and innovation. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure implies that performance will be monitored against the defined scope of work and the fixed fee, with potential adjustments or remedies if performance falls significantly short. A thorough review of the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) and associated CLINs (Contract Line Item Numbers) would reveal the precise metrics.

How does the $109.5 million award compare to historical spending on similar EPASS or engineering support services by the Air Force?

The $109.5 million award for EPASS (Engineering Professional and Administrative Support Services) represents a significant investment by the Air Force. To benchmark this against historical spending, one would need to analyze aggregate data for similar contracts awarded by the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC) or the Department of the Air Force more broadly. This would involve looking at the total annual spend on engineering support, R&D services, and administrative support over the past several fiscal years. Factors such as inflation, changes in mission requirements, and the number of active contracts would influence year-over-year comparisons. Without access to historical spending databases or specific reports on EPASS procurements, it's difficult to definitively state whether this award is higher or lower than average, but its substantial value suggests it's a key contract for supporting PEO directorates and sustainment efforts.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 8609 WESTWOOD CTR DR STE 300, VIENNA, VA, 22182

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $332,488,394

Exercised Options: $172,410,121

Current Obligation: $109,512,535

Actual Outlays: $33,806

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QRAD19D7001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline