Booz Allen Hamilton awarded $1.17B engineering services contract by GSA, spanning over 5 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $1,173,611,155 ($1.2B)

Contractor: Booz Allen Hamilton Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2015-09-23

End Date: 2021-03-22

Contract Duration: 2,007 days

Daily Burn Rate: $584.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: MC LEAN, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22102

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $1.17 billion to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract value of $1.17B suggests significant scope and long-term need for engineering services. 2. Full and open competition indicates a potentially competitive bidding process, which can drive better pricing. 3. The contract's duration of over 5 years (2015-2021) implies a sustained requirement for these services. 4. Engineering services are critical for government infrastructure and technology projects, indicating a foundational role. 5. The award to a large, established contractor like Booz Allen Hamilton suggests a focus on proven capability and experience. 6. The contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee) allows for performance incentives, potentially driving higher quality outcomes. 7. The absence of small business set-aside or subcontracting flags warrants further investigation into small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $1.17 billion over approximately five years suggests a substantial investment in engineering services. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale engineering contracts awarded by the GSA or other federal agencies would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the full and open competition method implies that multiple bidders vied for this contract, which typically leads to more competitive pricing than sole-source awards. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure also introduces performance incentives, which can enhance value if the contractor meets or exceeds performance targets.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bids indicates a moderate level of competition for this significant engineering services contract. While three bidders suggest some level of market engagement, a higher number of bids would typically provide stronger assurance of competitive pricing and broader market exploration. The agency's decision to use full and open competition is a positive indicator for price discovery and ensuring a fair opportunity for various contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages a competitive environment, potentially leading to lower costs and better service quality compared to less competitive procurement methods.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies requiring specialized engineering expertise for complex projects. Services delivered likely encompass a wide range of engineering disciplines, supporting infrastructure development, technology integration, and operational support. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, supporting federal projects across various locations. The contract supports a significant workforce of engineers and technical professionals employed by Booz Allen Hamilton and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of explicit small business subcontracting goals could limit opportunities for smaller firms in the engineering sector.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure, while incentivizing performance, can sometimes lead to higher costs if award fees are consistently maximized without strict cost controls.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair bidding process.
The contract's substantial value indicates a high level of trust and confidence in the contractor's capabilities.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for performance-based incentives, potentially driving superior service delivery.
The long contract duration suggests a stable and predictable revenue stream for the contractor, fostering investment in specialized resources.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector is characterized by high demand from government agencies for specialized expertise in areas such as civil, mechanical, electrical, and systems engineering. The market size for federal engineering services is substantial, driven by ongoing needs for infrastructure modernization, defense systems, and technological advancements. This contract represents a significant portion of federal spending within this specific engineering sub-sector, likely supporting complex government-wide initiatives.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals. This suggests that the primary award went to a large business. Without specific subcontracting plans or reporting, it is difficult to assess the extent to which small businesses will participate in fulfilling this contract. This could represent a missed opportunity to leverage the innovation and agility of the small business sector, and further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were made available.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the General Services Administration (GSA). Performance monitoring, invoicing, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates careful evaluation of performance metrics to determine award fees, adding another layer of oversight. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

GSA Federal Supply Schedule Contracts
Engineering and Technical Services
Professional Services Contracts
Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs)

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Contract Value
Cost Plus Award Fee Structure
Limited Small Business Participation Indication

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $1.17 billion to BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC. IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $1.17 billion.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-09-23. End: 2021-03-22.

What is the historical spending trend for engineering services under the GSA's Federal Acquisition Service?

Analyzing historical spending trends for engineering services under the GSA's Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) reveals a consistent and significant demand. Over the years, FAS has managed numerous large-scale contracts for engineering and technical support, reflecting the government's ongoing need for specialized expertise in areas like infrastructure development, IT modernization, and defense systems. Spending in this category has generally seen an upward trend, driven by increased federal investments in modernization projects and complex technological solutions. While specific figures fluctuate based on agency priorities and budget allocations, the overall trajectory indicates that engineering services remain a core area of federal procurement. The $1.17 billion awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton is indicative of the scale of individual contracts within this broader spending pattern, highlighting the substantial resources allocated to these critical services.

How does the awarded amount compare to other large engineering services contracts awarded by the federal government in recent years?

The $1.17 billion awarded to Booz Allen Hamilton is a substantial figure, placing it among the larger engineering services contracts. Federal agencies frequently award multi-year contracts in the hundreds of millions, and sometimes exceeding a billion dollars, for complex engineering and technical support. For instance, the Department of Defense, NASA, and the Department of Transportation often issue large contracts for aerospace engineering, systems integration, and infrastructure projects. Comparing this specific award to others requires looking at contracts with similar scope, duration, and service type (e.g., systems engineering, design, technical consulting). While $1.17 billion is significant, it is not unprecedented within the federal landscape, especially for contracts supporting major national programs or extensive agency-wide requirements. The key differentiator often lies in the specific services rendered and the criticality of the program being supported.

What are the typical performance metrics and award fee criteria for Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) engineering contracts?

For Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) engineering contracts, performance metrics and award fee criteria are meticulously defined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and Performance Work Statement (PWS). These metrics typically focus on objective, measurable outcomes that align with the government's goals. Common criteria include technical performance (e.g., meeting design specifications, system reliability), schedule adherence (e.g., timely completion of milestones), cost control (e.g., managing project expenses within budget), management effectiveness (e.g., quality of project management, communication), and customer satisfaction. The award fee is determined by the government's assessment of the contractor's performance against these criteria, often on a periodic basis (e.g., quarterly or annually). The fee structure is designed to incentivize the contractor to exceed minimum performance requirements and deliver exceptional value.

What is Booz Allen Hamilton's track record with large federal engineering services contracts?

Booz Allen Hamilton has a long and extensive track record of securing and performing large federal contracts, particularly in the realm of engineering, technology, and management consulting services. The company is a well-established prime contractor across numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, intelligence community, civilian agencies, and entities like the GSA. Their portfolio frequently includes complex, high-value contracts that require deep technical expertise, advanced research and development capabilities, and robust project management. Historical data indicates Booz Allen Hamilton has consistently been awarded significant portions of federal spending in areas such as systems engineering, cybersecurity, data analytics, and strategic planning. Their ability to win and execute contracts of this magnitude, like the $1.17B GSA award, underscores their established position and perceived capability within the federal contracting landscape.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this size and duration?

Contracts of this magnitude ($1.17 billion) and duration (over 5 years) carry inherent risks for both the government and the contractor. For the government, risks include potential cost overruns if not managed tightly, scope creep where requirements expand beyond the original intent, and contractor performance issues that could delay critical projects. There's also the risk of vendor lock-in, making it difficult to switch providers if performance degrades. For the contractor, risks involve the challenge of maintaining consistent performance over a long period, adapting to evolving government needs and technologies, managing a large workforce, and potential reputational damage if the contract is poorly executed. The CPAF structure, while incentivizing, also introduces complexity in performance evaluation and fee determination, which can be a source of disagreement.

How does the engineering services sector contribute to the overall federal IT and technology spending landscape?

The engineering services sector plays a crucial, albeit often indirect, role in the overall federal IT and technology spending landscape. While direct IT procurement focuses on hardware, software, and IT services (like cloud computing or cybersecurity), engineering services are foundational to the development, integration, and maintenance of the complex systems that underpin these technologies. This includes designing the infrastructure for data centers, developing specialized hardware components, engineering communication networks, and providing systems integration for large-scale IT deployments. Federal agencies rely on engineering expertise to translate technological requirements into tangible solutions, ensuring that IT investments are effectively implemented and supported. Therefore, spending in engineering services often complements and enables broader federal IT initiatives, contributing to the successful execution of technology modernization and digital transformation efforts across government.

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

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corporation

Address: 8283 GREENSBORO DR, MCLEAN, 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: $1,391,247,945

Exercised Options: $1,391,247,945

Current Obligation: $1,173,611,155

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 99

Total Subaward Amount: $41,936,186

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADU108

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline