GSA awards $25.3M engineering services contract to University of Dayton for enterprise product support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,340,055 ($25.3M)

Contractor: University of Dayton

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2015-09-18

End Date: 2017-09-17

Contract Duration: 730 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF FOR OTHER FUNCTIONS ENTERPRISE PRODUCT SUPPORT ENGINEERING EFFORT TO3

Place of Performance

Location: DAYTON, GREENE County, OHIO, 45433

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $25.3 million to UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF FOR OTHER FUNCTIONS ENTERPRISE PRODUCT SUPPORT ENGINEERING EFFORT TO3 Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Time and Materials, which can pose cost control risks if not managed closely. 3. The duration of 730 days (2 years) provides a stable period for service delivery. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 indicates engineering services. 5. The contract was awarded as a Delivery Order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. 6. The small business set-aside flag is false, indicating no specific preference for small businesses in this award.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $25.3 million contract is challenging without knowing the specific services rendered and the scope of work. However, the Time and Materials pricing model, while flexible, can lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not meticulously managed. Comparing this to similar engineering support contracts would require detailed analysis of service scope, labor categories, and duration. The absence of specific performance metrics or outcome-based pricing makes a definitive value assessment difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The number of bidders is not specified, but this method generally promotes price discovery and allows the government to select the best value. The competitive nature of the award suggests that the pricing is likely to be market-driven, although the Time and Materials structure requires careful oversight to ensure efficiency.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the potential for competitive pricing inherent in a full and open competition. This process aims to ensure that the government receives the most advantageous offer, preventing inflated costs that might arise from less competitive award methods.

Public Impact

The University of Dayton, as the contractor, will benefit from this award, likely utilizing its engineering expertise. The contract is expected to deliver engineering services for enterprise product support, benefiting federal agencies relying on these products. The geographic impact is primarily in Ohio (st) where the contractor is located, though the services may be delivered remotely or at various federal sites. The workforce implications include employment opportunities for engineers and support staff at the University of Dayton.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value and effectiveness of the services.
The contract is a Delivery Order, suggesting it's part of a larger IDIQ; understanding the parent contract's terms is crucial for a complete risk assessment.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive and fair pricing process.
The contract duration of two years provides stability for service delivery and planning.
The contractor, University of Dayton, is an established institution with likely strong engineering capabilities.

Sector Analysis

Engineering services, classified under NAICS code 541330, represent a significant sector within federal procurement. This contract for enterprise product support engineering effort fits within the broader IT and professional services landscape. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized expertise. Benchmarking this contract's value against similar engineering support contracts would require detailed analysis of the specific technical requirements and the labor mix proposed.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor is there an indication of specific subcontracting goals for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this particular award. However, the prime contractor, the University of Dayton, may engage small businesses as subcontractors if their services align with the contract's needs, though this is not explicitly mandated.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Federal Acquisition Service. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and the terms of the Time and Materials pricing. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, which provide details on awards. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

GSA Federal Acquisition Service Contracts
Engineering Services Contracts
Enterprise Product Support Contracts
Time and Materials Contracts
Delivery Orders

Risk Flags

Time and Materials Pricing
Potential for Cost Overruns
Scope Creep Risk
Contract Oversight Intensity Required

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $25.3 million to UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON. IGF::OT::IGF FOR OTHER FUNCTIONS ENTERPRISE PRODUCT SUPPORT ENGINEERING EFFORT TO3

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-09-18. End: 2017-09-17.

What is the University of Dayton's track record with federal contracts, particularly with GSA?

The University of Dayton has a history of receiving federal contracts, often in research and development or specialized services. Information from the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) would detail their past performance, including contract values, agencies served, and types of services rendered. Analyzing their performance on previous GSA contracts, if any, would provide insight into their reliability, adherence to timelines, and quality of service. A review of past performance ratings and any documented issues or commendations would be crucial for assessing their suitability for this current contract.

How does the $25.3 million value compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by GSA?

Comparing the $25.3 million value requires identifying contracts with similar scope, duration, and service type (engineering services for enterprise product support). GSA awards a wide range of contract values. If this contract is a delivery order under a larger IDIQ, its value should be considered in the context of the parent contract's ceiling. Without specific details on the services rendered, a direct comparison is difficult. However, $25.3 million over two years suggests a substantial, ongoing engineering support requirement, likely involving multiple personnel and significant technical expertise. Benchmarking against other large-scale engineering support contracts within GSA or other agencies would provide a clearer picture of its relative value.

What are the primary risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract of this magnitude?

The primary risk with a T&M contract of this magnitude ($25.3 million) is the potential for cost overruns due to the lack of a fixed ceiling on labor hours and material costs. Unlike fixed-price contracts, the government pays for the actual time and materials expended. This necessitates robust oversight from the contracting officer and technical monitors to ensure that efforts are efficient, necessary, and that rates are reasonable. Without stringent monitoring, contractors may be incentivized to extend task durations or increase resource utilization, leading to costs exceeding initial estimates. Effective management of T&M contracts requires detailed tracking of all hours and expenses, regular reporting, and clear communication to control scope and prevent inefficiencies.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' method in ensuring value for money for this type of engineering service?

Full and open competition is generally considered the most effective method for ensuring value for money, as it allows the widest possible pool of qualified contractors to bid. This competition drives down prices and encourages innovation. For engineering services, where technical expertise is paramount, the evaluation criteria would likely balance price with technical approach, past performance, and management capabilities. The success in achieving value depends on how well the solicitation defines the requirements and how effectively the evaluation process assesses the proposals against these criteria. If the competition yields multiple strong bids, the government is well-positioned to negotiate favorable terms and select the best overall value, rather than just the lowest price.

What are the historical spending patterns for engineering services under GSA's Federal Acquisition Service?

Historical spending patterns for engineering services under GSA's Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) can be analyzed through FPDS data. GSA FAS procures a wide array of services, including engineering, across various domains. Spending in this category has generally trended upwards over the years, reflecting the increasing complexity of government operations and the need for specialized technical support. The distribution of spending across different NAICS codes within engineering services (like 541330) would reveal which sub-sectors are most in demand. Analyzing trends in contract types (T&M vs. fixed-price), competition levels, and average contract values would provide context for the current $25.3 million award to the University of Dayton.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: ID05140071003

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 COLLEGE PARK AVE ALBERT EMANUEL HALL, DAYTON, OH, 45469

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Educational Institution, Higher Education, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Higher Education (Private), Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $66,106,698

Exercised Options: $25,340,055

Current Obligation: $25,340,055

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS05Q15BMD0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline