AAC Inc. contract for computer systems design services awarded by FCC for over $103M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $103,525,662 ($103.5M)

Contractor: AAC Inc.

Awarding Agency: Federal Communications Commission

Start Date: 2012-09-26

End Date: 2019-07-24

Contract Duration: 2,492 days

Daily Burn Rate: $41.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20554

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Federal Communications Commission obligated $103.5 million to AAC INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. The contract value of over $103 million represents a significant investment in IT services. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open competition, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. The duration of the contract (2492 days) raises questions about long-term planning and adaptability. 4. Performance context is limited without specific details on deliverables and outcomes. 5. The sector positioning is within IT services, a critical area for federal operations. 6. The contract type (Time and Materials) can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable contract data. The Time and Materials pricing model, while flexible, can be less cost-effective than fixed-price contracts if not meticulously managed. The total award amount of over $103 million over its duration suggests a substantial commitment, and its value is contingent on the successful delivery of complex computer systems design services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was broad, specific sources were initially excluded before a full competition was opened. The presence of 5 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition, which typically aids in price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring advanced computer systems design and integration services benefit from this contract. The contract supports the operational needs of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Geographic impact is primarily within the District of Columbia, where the contract is managed. The contract likely supports a workforce of IT professionals and system designers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type poses a risk of cost escalation if not closely monitored.
The long contract duration may not align with rapidly evolving technology needs.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess true value for money.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Award to AAC Inc. indicates a successful bid in a competitive environment.
The substantial award amount reflects the critical nature of the services provided.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) sector, specifically focusing on computer systems design services. This is a broad and essential category for government operations, encompassing everything from software development to network infrastructure. The market for these services is highly competitive, with numerous large and small firms vying for federal contracts. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within IT services categories, often measured by contract value and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. The primary impact on the small business ecosystem would be through indirect opportunities if AAC Inc. chooses to subcontract portions of the work to smaller firms, which is not explicitly detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) at the Federal Communications Commission, responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms and conditions, including delivery schedules and service level agreements. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal procurement databases like FPDS, where contract awards are reported. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

IT Services Contracts
Computer Systems Design
Federal Communications Commission Procurement
Information Technology Support Services

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may lead to technology obsolescence.
Time and Materials pricing model increases risk of cost overruns.
Lack of specific performance metrics hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Federal Communications Commission awarded $103.5 million to AAC INC.. IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AAC INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Federal Communications Commission (Federal Communications Commission).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $103.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-26. End: 2019-07-24.

What is the track record of AAC Inc. in performing similar federal contracts?

Analyzing the track record of AAC Inc. requires a deeper dive into their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving computer systems design services. While this specific award indicates they were successful in a competitive bid, it doesn't detail their historical success rates, client satisfaction, or adherence to timelines and budgets on previous engagements. A comprehensive review would involve examining past contract performance reports (CPARs), any documented disputes or terminations, and the overall value and complexity of their prior federal awards. Without this granular data, assessing their reliability and expertise based solely on this one contract is limited.

How does the pricing structure of this Time and Materials contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar services?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts are inherently flexible but can be prone to cost overruns if not managed diligently. Benchmarking the pricing for this contract requires comparing the hourly rates for various labor categories (e.g., project managers, engineers, technicians) against prevailing market rates for similar skill sets in the Washington D.C. area and within the federal IT services sector. Factors such as the specific technical expertise required, the level of experience of the personnel, and the duration of the engagement influence these rates. Without access to the specific labor rates negotiated within this contract, a precise comparison is difficult. However, T&M contracts are generally expected to be more expensive than fixed-price contracts for well-defined scopes of work due to the inherent risk transfer to the government.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this contract. Typically, for computer systems design services, KPIs might include metrics related to system uptime, performance efficiency, successful integration of new components, adherence to project timelines, bug resolution rates, and user satisfaction. The effectiveness of the contract is directly tied to how well AAC Inc. meets these (unspecified) performance standards. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) would be responsible for defining and monitoring these KPIs throughout the contract's lifecycle to ensure the delivered services meet their operational requirements and provide adequate value.

What is the historical spending trend for computer systems design services at the Federal Communications Commission?

To understand the historical spending trend for computer systems design services at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), one would need to analyze procurement data over several fiscal years. This involves querying federal spending databases (like FPDS or USASpending) for contracts awarded by the FCC under relevant North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, such as 541512 (Computer Systems Design Services). Examining this data would reveal the total amount spent annually on these services, the number of contracts awarded, the primary contractors, and the types of services procured. This analysis would help contextualize the $103 million award to AAC Inc. within the FCC's broader IT procurement landscape and identify any patterns or shifts in spending.

What risks are associated with the long duration (2492 days) of this contract?

The long duration of this contract, approximately 6.8 years, presents several risks. Firstly, technology evolves rapidly; systems designed and implemented early in the contract may become outdated or require significant modifications by the end. This can lead to increased costs for upgrades or retrofitting. Secondly, the long timeframe increases the risk of scope creep, where the project's objectives expand beyond the original intent, potentially without commensurate adjustments in budget or timeline management. Thirdly, maintaining consistent performance and engagement from the contractor over such an extended period can be challenging. Finally, the government's needs may change significantly over nearly seven years, potentially making the contracted services less relevant or requiring substantial re-negotiation.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Computer Systems Design Services

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: 5

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 8470 TYCO RD, VIENNA, VA, 22182

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $110,007,666

Exercised Options: $109,164,999

Current Obligation: $103,525,662

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS06F0592Z

IDV Type: GWAC

Timeline