DoD's $25.8M IT services contract with Stanley Associates, Inc. awarded in 2008, ran for 5 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,805,807 ($25.8M)

Contractor: Stanley Associates, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-05-29

End Date: 2013-05-10

Contract Duration: 1,807 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: LABOR

Place of Performance

Location: QUANTICO, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 22134, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.8 million to STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. for work described as: LABOR Key points: 1. Value for money assessed through benchmarking against similar IT service contracts. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators include contract duration and fixed-price nature, which can shift risk to the contractor. 4. Performance context is within the Department of Defense's IT modernization efforts. 5. Sector positioning is in IT services, a critical area for government operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this $25.8 million contract against similar IT services contracts awarded around 2008 reveals a moderate price point. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor assumed the primary risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if performance was satisfactory. However, without detailed performance metrics or a comparison of the specific services rendered to market rates at the time, a definitive value assessment is challenging. The contract's duration of nearly five years also warrants consideration in the overall value proposition.

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 two bidders suggests a degree of competition, though the exact number of interested parties and the intensity of the bidding process are not detailed. A competitive award process generally supports price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government compared to less competitive methods.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition likely resulted in a more cost-effective outcome for taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing and technical solutions.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from IT services supporting its operational and administrative functions. Services delivered likely include IT support, system maintenance, and potentially software development or integration. Geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense's operational footprint, likely concentrated in areas where Navy IT infrastructure is managed. Workforce implications may involve IT professionals employed by Stanley Associates, Inc., contributing to the federal IT workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The IT services sector is a vast and critical component of federal spending, encompassing a wide range of support, development, and maintenance activities. This contract falls within the 'Other Computer Related Services' category, suggesting specialized IT support rather than broad system development. Comparable spending benchmarks in this sub-sector are highly variable, depending on the specific services, duration, and agency needs. Federal IT spending overall represents a significant portion of the federal budget, with ongoing investments in modernization and cybersecurity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a result, small businesses were likely not the primary beneficiaries of this direct award. However, depending on the subcontracting plan negotiated with Stanley Associates, Inc., there may have been opportunities for small businesses to participate indirectly. The absence of a small business set-aside suggests the competition was geared towards larger, more established IT service providers capable of meeting the contract's requirements.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Navy, a component of the Department of Defense. Accountability measures would typically involve contract performance reviews, milestone tracking, and payment verification. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

it-services, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, professional-services, computer-systems-design, virginia, historical-contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.8 million to STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC.. LABOR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-05-29. End: 2013-05-10.

What was the specific nature of the 'Other Computer Related Services' provided under this contract?

The contract NAICS code 541519, 'Other Computer Related Services,' is broad and encompasses a variety of IT services not classified elsewhere. For this specific Department of the Navy contract, these services likely included specialized IT support, network administration, help desk functions, IT consulting, or potentially niche software maintenance and support. Without access to the contract's statement of work (SOW), the precise deliverables remain unspecified. However, given the duration and value, it suggests a sustained need for particular IT expertise beyond basic maintenance, possibly related to legacy systems or specific operational requirements within the Navy.

How does the $25.8 million value compare to similar IT service contracts awarded by the DoD in the 2008-2013 timeframe?

The $25.8 million value for a nearly five-year IT services contract awarded in 2008 falls within a moderate range for Department of Defense procurements of that era. Larger, more complex IT system development or integration contracts could easily reach hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Conversely, smaller, short-term support contracts would be significantly less. This contract's value suggests a substantial but not massive requirement, likely for ongoing support or specialized services rather than a complete overhaul of major IT infrastructure. Benchmarking against contracts with similar NAICS codes (541519) and durations would provide a more precise comparison, but generally, this amount represents a significant investment in IT capabilities.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Stanley Associates, Inc.'s performance?

Specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, for IT services contracts, common KPIs often include system uptime percentages, response times for service requests (e.g., help desk tickets), resolution rates for technical issues, adherence to security protocols, and timely completion of project milestones if applicable. For a Firm Fixed Price contract, the government would typically monitor whether the contractor met the defined service levels and delivered the agreed-upon scope of work. Performance evaluations would likely have been conducted periodically by the contracting officer's representative (COR) to ensure compliance with the contract's terms and conditions.

What is the typical track record of Stanley Associates, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the DoD?

Stanley Associates, Inc. has historically been a significant contractor with the U.S. federal government, including the Department of Defense. Prior to its acquisition by CGI Federal in 2014, the company held numerous contracts across various agencies, providing a wide range of IT and professional services. Their track record generally involved supporting defense, civilian, and intelligence agencies. While specific performance details for individual contracts are not publicly aggregated in a simple metric, their sustained presence and numerous awards suggest a generally capable performance history. However, like any large contractor, there could have been instances of both exceptional performance and areas for improvement across their extensive portfolio.

How did the 'full and open competition' impact the final price compared to a sole-source or limited competition award?

A 'full and open competition' process, as used for this $25.8 million contract, typically leads to more competitive pricing than sole-source or limited competition awards. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, the government maximizes the number of potential offerors, increasing the likelihood of receiving proposals with aggressive pricing strategies. Multiple bidders are incentivized to offer their best value to win the contract. In contrast, sole-source awards lack this competitive pressure, potentially resulting in higher prices as the contractor is the only option. Limited competition, with fewer bidders, offers some price competition but generally less than a fully open process. Therefore, the full and open approach likely secured a more favorable price for the government in this instance.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'firm fixed price' contract of this duration?

A 'firm fixed price' (FFP) contract, while shifting cost risk to the contractor, can present risks, especially for longer durations like the 1807 days (approx. 5 years) of this contract. If the initial cost estimates were inaccurate or if unforeseen technical challenges arise, the contractor might struggle to maintain profitability, potentially impacting their motivation or ability to deliver quality services. Conversely, if the contractor significantly underbid, they might cut corners on quality or service levels. For the government, the primary risk is that the FFP structure offers less flexibility to adjust the scope or requirements mid-contract without potentially costly change orders. Evolving technological needs or shifts in strategic priorities could make the contracted services less relevant or efficient over the contract's lifespan.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesComputer Systems Design and Related ServicesOther Computer Related Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONSADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CGI Inc (UEI: 248513116)

Address: 3101 WILSON BLVD STE 700, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,106,912

Exercised Options: $25,805,807

Current Obligation: $25,805,807

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F5900H

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline

Start Date: 2008-05-29

Current End Date: 2013-05-10

Potential End Date: 2013-05-10 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2015-06-09

More Contracts from Stanley Associates, Inc.

View all Stanley Associates, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending