General Dynamics Decision Systems awarded $9.87M contract for project management and documentation by DHS

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,870,856 ($9.9M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Decision Systems

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2007-10-31

End Date: 2008-09-30

Contract Duration: 335 days

Daily Burn Rate: $29.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CLIN 0001F: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DOCUMENTATION

Place of Performance

Location: SCOTTSDALE, MARICOPA County, ARIZONA, 85257

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $9.9 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS DECISION SYSTEMS for work described as: CLIN 0001F: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DOCUMENTATION Key points: 1. Contract focused on project management and documentation, indicating a need for structured support in these areas. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract duration of 335 days points to a defined project scope. 4. The cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing structure allows for flexibility while maintaining cost control. 5. The contract was awarded as a delivery order, likely part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle. 6. The geographic location of Arizona is noted, potentially indicating the operational area for the services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $9.87 million for project management and documentation over approximately one year appears within a reasonable range for specialized support services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for project management and documentation within the Department of Homeland Security or other federal agencies would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates careful oversight to ensure costs remain controlled and that the fixed fee is commensurate with the effort required.

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 presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific delivery order. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing price discovery and ensuring fair access to government contracts, the number of bidders can influence the intensity of the competition and its impact on pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically drives down prices through a wider pool of potential offerors. A moderate number of bidders, like the three in this case, still provides a competitive dynamic that can lead to cost savings compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.

Public Impact

The U.S. Coast Guard, a component of DHS, is the primary beneficiary of these project management and documentation services. The services delivered are crucial for the effective planning, execution, and closure of specific projects within the Coast Guard. The contract's impact is geographically centered in Arizona, suggesting the projects supported are located or managed from this state. The contract likely supports a team of project managers, technical writers, and administrative staff, contributing to the federal workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize contractors to incur more costs if not carefully managed, as the fee is fixed regardless of the actual costs incurred.
The specific nature of 'project management and documentation' can be broad, requiring clear performance standards and deliverables to ensure accountability.
The contract was awarded in 2007, and its performance concluded in 2008; current relevance and cost comparisons may be limited by the time elapsed.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a robust and fair bidding process.
The contract specifies a fixed fee component, which helps in budget predictability once the scope is defined.
The contract was a delivery order, suggesting it was likely part of a pre-competed IDIQ contract, which can streamline acquisition processes.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on management and technical consulting. The federal government frequently procures such services to support complex projects, program management, and documentation requirements across various agencies. The market for these services is competitive, with numerous large and small businesses offering specialized expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be assessed against the average cost of project management and technical documentation support for similar-sized projects within the defense and homeland security sectors.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, as indicated by `sb: false`. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance. The absence of a small business set-aside suggests that the competition was open to all responsible sources, including large businesses. Future analysis could explore whether subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the U.S. Coast Guard contracting officer and program managers. As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, there may be established oversight mechanisms from the parent IDIQ contract. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Homeland Security - Project Management Services
U.S. Coast Guard - Operational Support Contracts
Federal IT and Management Consulting Services
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs.
Scope definition for 'project management and documentation' needs to be precise to avoid ambiguity.
Contract performance concluded in 2008; current cost and performance benchmarks may be outdated.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $9.9 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS DECISION SYSTEMS. CLIN 0001F: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DOCUMENTATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS DECISION SYSTEMS.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-10-31. End: 2008-09-30.

What was the specific nature of the 'project management and documentation' services required under this contract?

The CLIN description 'CLIN 0001F: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND DOCUMENTATION' indicates the core services involved overseeing and documenting specific projects. This could encompass a range of activities such as project planning, scheduling, resource allocation, risk management, progress reporting, quality assurance, and the creation of technical manuals, user guides, or project closure reports. Without further details on the specific projects supported, the exact scope remains general. However, such services are critical for ensuring projects are completed on time, within budget, and meet their objectives, while also maintaining comprehensive records for future reference and accountability.

How does the awarded amount of $9.87 million compare to similar project management contracts within the Coast Guard or DHS?

Benchmarking the $9.87 million award requires comparing it to contracts with similar scopes (project management and documentation), durations (335 days), and pricing structures (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and specifically the U.S. Coast Guard. Given the contract was awarded in 2007 and completed in 2008, current market rates may differ. However, for a one-year engagement, this value suggests a significant project or a team of specialized personnel. A detailed analysis would involve querying contract databases for comparable awards, adjusting for inflation and specific service requirements, to determine if the price was competitive relative to the market at the time and for similar federal procurements.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for project management services?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as their profit (the fixed fee) is guaranteed regardless of the actual costs incurred. If the government's oversight is insufficient, the contractor could potentially incur higher costs than necessary, leading to reduced value for money. For project management and documentation, risks include scope creep, where the project expands beyond initial definitions, potentially increasing costs without a corresponding adjustment to the fixed fee unless change orders are properly managed. Effective risk mitigation requires robust government oversight, clear definition of tasks and deliverables, and diligent monitoring of expenditures against the estimated cost.

What does the 'Delivery Order' designation imply about this contract?

The 'Delivery Order' (DO) designation typically means this contract is a task order issued against a previously awarded Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. IDIQ contracts establish terms and conditions, including pricing structures and performance standards, for a broad range of services over a period of time. Delivery Orders are then used to procure specific quantities of supplies or services under that IDIQ. This approach allows agencies to streamline the procurement process for recurring needs, as the foundational contract has already been competed. It implies that the initial competition for the IDIQ vehicle likely involved multiple bidders, and this DO represents one specific call for services under that umbrella agreement.

How might the geographic location in Arizona impact the contract's execution or cost?

The contract's stated location in Arizona (ST: AZ, SN: ARIZONA) suggests that the project management and documentation services were either performed by personnel based in Arizona or related to projects physically located or managed within the state. This could influence costs related to labor rates, which can vary regionally, and potentially travel or logistical expenses if personnel need to be on-site. For federal contracts, specific geographic locations can sometimes be tied to socio-economic programs or specific operational needs of the agency. In this case, it might indicate the operational theater for the U.S. Coast Guard activities being supported.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 8201 E MCDOWELL RD, SCOTTSDALE, AZ, 85257

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,870,856

Exercised Options: $9,870,856

Current Obligation: $9,870,856

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTCG2302DNDRS02

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline