CACI Technologies awarded $30M for Soldier Power systems, with 2 bids received

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,979,784 ($30.0M)

Contractor: CACI Technologies, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2014-06-16

End Date: 2018-12-15

Contract Duration: 1,643 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF RPTIS WO15 SOLDIER POWER

Place of Performance

Location: ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, HARFORD County, MARYLAND, 21005

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $30.0 million to CACI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF RPTIS WO15 SOLDIER POWER Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of engineering services. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for higher pricing than a more open market. 3. Contract duration and type (Time and Materials) present moderate cost overrun risks. 4. Services align with critical defense needs for power solutions. 5. Positioned within the engineering services sector supporting defense agencies.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $30 million over roughly 4.5 years for engineering services is within a reasonable range for complex defense-related projects. Benchmarking against similar contracts for specialized engineering support indicates that the pricing structure, while not explicitly detailed here, is likely competitive given the limited number of bidders. The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing model, however, introduces inherent risk for cost escalation if not closely managed.

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. However, only two bids were received, suggesting that the market for this specific type of specialized engineering service may be limited, or that other potential bidders did not find the opportunity sufficiently attractive. The limited number of bidders could impact price discovery, potentially leading to less aggressive pricing than if there were a larger pool of competitors.

Taxpayer Impact: With only two bidders, taxpayers may not have benefited from the most competitive pricing achievable through broader market engagement. This could translate to a higher overall cost for the government compared to a scenario with more robust competition.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the enhanced Soldier Power systems. Services delivered include engineering support for the development and sustainment of power solutions for soldiers. The geographic impact is primarily within military installations and operational theaters where U.S. Army forces are deployed. Workforce implications include specialized engineering roles within CACI Technologies and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type increases risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may have resulted in less aggressive pricing for taxpayers.
The specific nature of 'Soldier Power' systems could involve evolving technological requirements and associated cost adjustments.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring a fair process.
Engineering services are critical for modernizing military equipment and enhancing soldier capabilities.
Contract duration suggests a sustained need and commitment to the program's success.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting defense applications. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by continuous modernization efforts and the need for specialized technical expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks in this area are difficult to pinpoint without more specific details on the technology, but large-scale defense engineering contracts can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. This contract represents a moderate investment within the broader defense technology landscape.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this specific contract, as it was not set aside for small businesses and the prime contractor is a large entity. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem, though typically large prime contracts offer opportunities for small business subcontractors if actively pursued.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA) and the relevant Army contracting command. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Army Power Systems
Soldier Modernization Programs
Defense Engineering Services
C4ISR Systems Support

Risk Flags

Limited competition may lead to suboptimal pricing.
Time and Materials contract type poses cost overrun risks.
Potential for scope creep without stringent oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $30.0 million to CACI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC. IGF::OT::IGF RPTIS WO15 SOLDIER POWER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CACI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $30.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-06-16. End: 2018-12-15.

What is the specific nature of the 'Soldier Power' systems being developed or supported under this contract?

The 'Soldier Power' systems likely refer to portable, ruggedized power generation and distribution solutions designed to support individual soldiers in the field. This could encompass advanced battery technologies, portable generators, power management units, and charging systems for electronic equipment such as radios, navigation devices, and weapon sights. The goal is to reduce the logistical burden of carrying heavy batteries and ensure continuous operation of critical gear, thereby enhancing soldier effectiveness and survivability. The specific technical details would be found in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW).

How does the $30 million contract value compare to similar engineering services contracts for defense applications?

Comparing the $30 million value requires context on the contract's duration (approx. 4.5 years) and the specific engineering services provided. For specialized defense engineering, particularly involving power systems or soldier modernization, this value is moderate. Larger, more complex system development contracts can easily exceed hundreds of millions. However, for focused engineering support, design, and sustainment, $30 million over this period suggests a significant but not exceptionally large investment. Benchmarking against similar GSA schedules or specific defense solicitations for engineering services would provide a more precise comparison, but the value appears reasonable for the scope.

What are the primary risks associated with the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type for this project?

The primary risk with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract type is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M agreements reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours at specified rates and for the actual cost of materials. This structure provides flexibility but offers less incentive for the contractor to control costs efficiently. If project requirements are not well-defined, or if scope creep occurs, the total cost to the government can escalate significantly beyond initial estimates. Effective government oversight, including detailed monitoring of labor hours and material costs, is crucial to mitigate these risks.

Given only two bids were received, what does this imply about the contractor's track record and market competition?

The receipt of only two bids under a full and open solicitation suggests a potentially concentrated market for these specific engineering services. It could indicate that only a few companies possess the requisite technical expertise, security clearances, or past performance capabilities to compete effectively. For CACI Technologies, this implies they were one of the few capable entities. From a competition standpoint, limited bidders can reduce price pressure, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a scenario with multiple, highly competitive bids. It underscores the importance of market research to ensure adequate competition in future solicitations.

What are the historical spending patterns for similar 'Soldier Power' or soldier modernization programs?

Historical spending on soldier modernization programs, including power solutions, has been substantial and ongoing, reflecting the military's continuous effort to equip soldiers with advanced technology. Programs like the Nett Warrior system, integrated visual augmentation systems, and advanced communication gear all involve significant investments in power management and portability. While specific figures for 'Soldier Power' systems are not detailed here, overall spending on soldier modernization across the DoD runs into billions of dollars annually. This contract represents a component of that larger, sustained investment in enhancing individual soldier capabilities.

How effective are GSA contracts in ensuring value for money in specialized engineering services?

GSA contracts, particularly those leveraging schedules like the Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), aim to streamline procurement and achieve value for money by pre-negotiating favorable rates and terms. For specialized engineering services, GSA schedules can offer access to a wide range of pre-vetted contractors. However, the actual value for money achieved depends heavily on the specific task orders issued, the level of competition within those task orders (as seen with only two bidders here), and the government's ability to effectively manage the contract and monitor performance. While GSA provides a framework, diligent contract administration remains paramount for ensuring optimal value.

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

Solicitation ID: ID07140006

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CACI International Inc

Address: 14370 NEWBROOK DRIVE, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $50,183,698

Exercised Options: $50,116,654

Current Obligation: $29,979,784

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 17

Total Subaward Amount: $2,294,805

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: SUPPLIES OR SERVICES PURSUANT TO FAR 12.102(F)

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS07T12BGD0012

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline