GSA's $48.6M SPOT contract to American Systems Corp. for IT services shows mixed value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $48,590,951 ($48.6M)

Contractor: American Systems Corporation

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2009-09-30

End Date: 2012-10-31

Contract Duration: 1,127 days

Daily Burn Rate: $43.1K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Official Description: SYNCHRONIZED PRE-DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONAL TRACKER (SPOT)

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $48.6 million to AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION for work described as: SYNCHRONIZED PRE-DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONAL TRACKER (SPOT) Key points: 1. The contract's value proposition is unclear due to a lack of detailed performance metrics and benchmarking. 2. Competition was limited, with only two bidders, potentially impacting price discovery and taxpayer value. 3. The use of Time and Materials pricing introduces risk for cost overruns if not closely managed. 4. This contract falls within the broader IT services sector, supporting federal operational tracking needs. 5. The contract's duration and total value suggest a significant, albeit not massive, federal investment. 6. Oversight and accountability mechanisms are crucial given the contract's structure and competition level.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Assessing the value for money on this $48.6 million contract is challenging without specific performance data or comparable contract benchmarks. The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, while flexible, can lead to higher costs if not meticulously managed and monitored against defined deliverables. Compared to other IT service contracts of similar scope, the pricing appears within a general range, but the lack of detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics prevents a definitive value assessment. The limited competition further complicates a robust value-for-money analysis.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order under a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. However, only two bids were received, indicating a limited competitive landscape for this specific order. While it was competed, the low number of bidders suggests potential barriers to entry or a concentrated market for these specialized services. This limited competition may have restricted the government's ability to secure the most favorable pricing and innovative solutions.

Taxpayer Impact: A limited number of bidders means taxpayers may not have benefited from the full spectrum of competitive pricing that a more open solicitation could have generated. This could translate to higher overall costs for the services rendered.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring operational tracking and management systems benefit from the services provided. The contract supports the development and maintenance of IT systems crucial for government operations. The geographic impact is primarily federal, with services likely supporting national-level operations. The contract likely supports a workforce of IT professionals and project managers involved in system development and support.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Risk of cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing structure.
Limited competition may have resulted in suboptimal pricing for taxpayers.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Potential for scope creep without stringent oversight on T&M contracts.

Positive Signals

Contract was awarded through a competitive process, albeit with limited bidders.
Supports critical federal operational tracking needs, indicating strategic importance.
American Systems Corporation has a track record in government contracting.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader Information Technology (IT) services sector, specifically 'Other Computer Related Services.' This sector is characterized by a wide range of services, from software development to IT consulting and support. Federal spending in this area is substantial, driven by the need for modernizing legacy systems, enhancing cybersecurity, and improving operational efficiency. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish precisely without knowing the exact scope, but IT services represent a significant portion of the federal procurement budget.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside requirement. The prime contractor, American Systems Corporation, is likely a mid-to-large-sized business, and its engagement does not inherently create opportunities for small business subcontractors unless specified within the contract's broader framework or through the contractor's own business practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) through its Federal Acquisition Service. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance work statement and the Time and Materials (T&M) CLINs, requiring diligent monitoring of hours and materials against approved rates and ceilings. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal procurement databases like FPDS, where contract awards are recorded. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

IT Professional Services
Software Development
IT Operations and Support
General Services Administration Contracts
Delivery Orders

Risk Flags

Time and Materials Pricing
Limited Competition
Lack of Performance Metrics
Historical Contract Data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $48.6 million to AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION. SYNCHRONIZED PRE-DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONAL TRACKER (SPOT)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $48.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-30. End: 2012-10-31.

What is the track record of American Systems Corporation with federal contracts, particularly those involving IT services?

American Systems Corporation has a substantial history of federal contracting, with numerous awards across various agencies and service categories, including IT services. Their portfolio often includes support for defense, intelligence, and civilian agencies, encompassing areas like systems engineering, software development, and IT modernization. While specific performance details for each contract are not always publicly available, their consistent presence in federal procurement suggests a capacity to meet government requirements. Analyzing their past performance on similar Time and Materials contracts, especially those with significant dollar values, would provide further insight into their ability to manage costs and deliver effectively within defined parameters. Their overall federal contract history indicates they are an established player in the government contracting space.

How does the $48.6 million total value compare to similar IT service contracts awarded by GSA?

The $48.6 million total value for the SYNCHRONIZED PRE-DEPLOYMENT OPERATIONAL TRACKER (SPOT) contract is a moderate-sized award within the vast landscape of GSA IT service contracts. GSA procures a wide array of IT services, ranging from small, specialized task orders to multi-billion dollar IDIQ vehicles. Contracts in the tens of millions are common for specific projects or defined periods of support. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to benchmark against contracts with similar scope (e.g., operational tracking systems, software development, IT support) and duration (over 3 years). However, generally speaking, this value indicates a significant but not exceptionally large investment, suggesting a focused project or a defined service requirement rather than a comprehensive, agency-wide IT overhaul.

What are the primary risks associated with the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure used in this contract?

The primary risk associated with the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M contracts pay the contractor for the actual labor hours and material costs incurred. If not managed rigorously, this can lead to the government paying more than anticipated, especially if project scope expands, inefficiencies arise, or if the contractor's billing practices are not closely scrutinized. For taxpayers, this translates to a higher financial burden. Effective oversight, detailed reporting of hours and materials, and clear task definitions are crucial to mitigate these risks. Without strong controls, T&M can become significantly more expensive than initially projected, making it essential for the contracting officer's representative (COR) to maintain vigilant oversight.

How effective is the 'limited' competition level in ensuring competitive pricing for this contract?

A 'limited' competition level, defined here by only two bidders, generally has a mixed impact on ensuring competitive pricing. On one hand, having more than one bidder introduces some level of price pressure, preventing a sole-source scenario where the contractor could dictate terms. On the other hand, with only two bidders, the market may not be fully explored, and the government might not be benefiting from the most aggressive pricing strategies that could emerge from a larger pool of competitors. The specific nature of the services required and the number of qualified vendors in the market play a significant role. If the market is inherently small for these specialized services, two bidders might represent substantial competition. However, if more vendors could have realistically bid, the limited competition could lead to higher prices for taxpayers.

What are the implications of the contract's end date (October 31, 2012) on its current relevance and historical analysis?

The contract's end date of October 31, 2012, signifies that this is a historical contract. Any analysis of its performance, value, and impact must be conducted with the understanding that the services were rendered over a decade ago. This means current market rates, technological capabilities, and federal spending priorities may differ significantly. For historical analysis, the data provides a snapshot of federal IT procurement practices during that period. It allows for comparisons with other contracts from the same era to understand trends in pricing, competition, and contract types. However, using this data to assess current value or predict future spending would be inappropriate without significant adjustments for inflation, technological evolution, and changes in government acquisition strategies.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 02FL2190808

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 14151 PARK MEADOW DR STE 500, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $48,998,192

Exercised Options: $48,998,192

Current Obligation: $48,590,951

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F4581G

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline