Leidos Inc. contract for programming services awarded by GSA valued at $17.7M over 3 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,672,089 ($17.7M)

Contractor: Leidos, Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2005-08-01

End Date: 2008-01-31

Contract Duration: 913 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.4K/day

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: IT

Official Description: PROGRAMMING SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, FULTON County, GEORGIA, 30301, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $17.7 million to LEIDOS, INC. for work described as: PROGRAMMING SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single vendor, raising questions about competition. 2. Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 3. The contract duration of 913 days suggests a significant, ongoing need for services. 4. Awarded by the General Services Administration, a common agency for IT and support services. 5. The contract was awarded under the Federal Acquisition Service, indicating a focus on shared government services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of approximately $17.7 million over three years for programming services appears moderate for a federal contract of this nature. Without specific benchmarks for similar programming services contracts from the same period, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, while flexible, carries inherent risks of cost escalation if not rigorously monitored for efficiency and necessity of hours billed. Further analysis would require comparison with industry standards and other government contracts for comparable services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a sole-source contract, meaning only one vendor was considered. This approach bypasses the typical competitive bidding process, which usually involves multiple companies submitting proposals. While sole-source awards can be justified in specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities, urgent needs), they generally limit price discovery and may result in higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract. The lack of competition here means taxpayers may not have received the benefit of the lowest possible price.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not benefit from competitive pricing, potentially leading to higher overall expenditure for the government.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring specialized programming and IT support services benefit from this contract. The contract supports the operational needs of the General Services Administration and potentially other federal entities. It ensures the availability of skilled personnel for software development, maintenance, and related IT functions. The contract contributes to the IT infrastructure and service delivery capabilities of the U.S. government.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader Information Technology (IT) services sector, specifically focusing on programming and software development. The federal IT services market is substantial, with agencies consistently investing in modernizing systems and developing new applications. Contracts like this are crucial for maintaining and enhancing the digital infrastructure that supports government operations. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing it to similar programming service contracts awarded by federal agencies during the mid-2000s, considering factors like scope, duration, and vendor expertise.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, the 'ss': false flag suggests it was not awarded under a small business set-aside program. This means that opportunities for small businesses to directly participate in this specific contract as the prime vendor were likely limited. While Leidos, Inc. might engage small businesses as subcontractors, the primary award mechanism did not prioritize small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Federal Acquisition Service. GSA has established procurement regulations and contract administration processes. However, the effectiveness of oversight for a sole-source, Time and Materials contract depends heavily on the diligence of the contracting officers in monitoring performance, approving hours, and ensuring that the work performed is necessary and cost-effective. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature, and specific Inspector General (IG) involvement would depend on any identified issues or audits.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

it-services, programming, software-development, general-services-administration, leidos-inc, time-and-materials, sole-source, federal-acquisition-service, mid-2000s, georgia, moderate-value

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $17.7 million to LEIDOS, INC.. PROGRAMMING SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LEIDOS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-08-01. End: 2008-01-31.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are awarded when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the agency's needs. This could be due to unique technical expertise, proprietary technology, or urgent requirements where a competitive process would be impractical or detrimental. Without further documentation from the General Services Administration (GSA) at the time of award, the precise rationale remains unknown. This lack of transparency is a common concern with sole-source procurements, as it limits the public's ability to understand why competition was bypassed and potentially higher costs were incurred.

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure compare to other contract types for similar programming services during this period?

During the mid-2000s, Time and Materials (T&M) contracts were common for IT services, especially when the scope of work was not clearly defined or was expected to evolve. However, they are generally considered less desirable than fixed-price contracts from a cost-control perspective. T&M contracts allow the contractor to bill for direct labor hours at specified hourly rates and for the actual cost of materials. This structure places a significant burden on the government to closely monitor labor hours and material costs to prevent overruns. Agencies often preferred Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) or Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contracts when requirements could be well-defined, as these provide greater cost certainty and incentivize contractor efficiency. The choice of T&M here suggests either a poorly defined initial scope or a deliberate decision to prioritize flexibility over cost predictability.

What was Leidos, Inc.'s track record with the GSA or similar agencies prior to this award?

Leidos, Inc. (and its predecessor, SAIC) has a long history of contracting with the U.S. government, including various agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA). Prior to August 2005, when this contract was awarded, Leidos had established itself as a major government contractor, particularly in IT services, systems integration, and engineering. Their track record would have included numerous federal contracts, likely demonstrating experience in delivering programming and IT support services. GSA, as a central procurement agency, would have had access to past performance information, which is a key factor in contract awards. While specific details of their performance on contracts immediately preceding this award are not in the provided data, their general standing as a large, experienced contractor suggests they met the necessary qualifications for consideration, even in a sole-source context.

Were there any performance issues or contract modifications noted during the life of this contract?

The provided data summary does not contain information regarding specific performance issues, contract modifications, or disputes that may have occurred during the life of this contract (August 1, 2005, to January 31, 2008). Contract modifications are common and can adjust scope, funding, or timelines. Performance issues would typically be documented in contract performance reports or through formal dispute resolution processes. Without access to the contract's official file or subsequent government reports, it is impossible to assess whether the contract was executed smoothly or encountered significant challenges. The duration and value suggest it was likely completed, but the nature of its execution remains undocumented in this summary.

How does the total contract value of $17.7 million compare to average federal programming service contract spending in the mid-2000s?

The total contract value of $17.7 million over approximately three years ($5.9 million annually) for programming services is within a moderate range for federal IT contracts during the mid-2000s. However, 'average' spending can be misleading due to the wide variation in contract sizes. Large agencies like the Department of Defense or Homeland Security often award much larger contracts, sometimes in the hundreds of millions or billions. Smaller agencies or specific project needs might result in smaller contracts. This $17.7 million contract appears to be for a significant but not massive undertaking. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze a dataset of similar programming service contracts awarded by GSA and other civilian agencies during that specific timeframe, filtering by contract type (T&M), duration, and scope to establish a more accurate benchmark.

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Leidos Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 611641312)

Address: 10260 CAMPUS POINT DR, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92121

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,429,522

Exercised Options: $17,672,089

Current Obligation: $17,672,089

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS09K99BHD0010

IDV Type: GWAC

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-08-01

Current End Date: 2008-01-31

Potential End Date: 2008-01-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2015-08-05

More Contracts from Leidos, Inc.

View all Leidos, Inc. federal contracts →

Other General Services Administration Contracts

View all General Services Administration contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending