DoD's $39.6M contract for IT facility operations and maintenance services awarded to Lockheed Martin Services, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,626,241 ($39.6M)

Contractor: Lockheed Martin Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-01-25

End Date: 2011-08-18

Contract Duration: 3,857 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.3K/day

Competition Type: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: 200112!001927!1700!D0231 !SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS !N0003901C4100 !A!N!*!N! !20010125!20020930!805258373!805258373!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES INC !2339 ROUTE 70 WEST, FLOOR !CHERRY HILL !NJ!08002!55000!071!22!NEW ORLEANS !ORLEANS !LOUISIANA !+000003000000!N!N!000000000000!D301!ADP FACILITY OPERATION & MAINTENANCE SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541519!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !C !N!J!1!001!N!1B!Z!Y!A! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: GAITHERSBURG, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20879

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $39.6 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES, LLC for work described as: 200112!001927!1700!D0231 !SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS !N0003901C4100 !A!N!*!N! !20010125!20020930!805258373!805258373!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES INC !2339 ROUTE 70 WEST, FLOOR !CHERRY HILL !NJ!08002!55000!071!22!NEW ORLEANS !ORLEA… Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in maintaining critical IT infrastructure for naval warfare systems. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract require further investigation to understand its impact on pricing. 3. The duration of the contract (over 10 years) suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. Performance context is crucial to assess if the services delivered met the evolving needs of naval warfare systems. 5. This contract falls within the broader IT services sector, specifically focusing on facility operations and maintenance. 6. The award to a large, established contractor like Lockheed Martin may indicate a preference for proven capabilities in complex environments.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed performance metrics and a clearer understanding of the specific services provided. The initial award value of $39.6 million over a decade suggests a substantial but potentially reasonable cost for maintaining complex IT facilities. However, without comparable contract data for similar services within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies, it's difficult to definitively assess if this represents excellent value for money. Further analysis of task orders and any modifications would be necessary to provide a more precise valuation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The data indicates the contract was a 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION,' suggesting that while this specific award might not have been directly competed, it originated from a previously competed vehicle. The number of bidders and the specific competition method for the original action are not detailed here. Understanding the level of competition for the initial award is key to assessing price discovery and potential savings.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of clear competition details for this follow-on action makes it difficult to ascertain the direct impact on taxpayer value. If the original competition was robust, this follow-on could represent a fair price. However, without that information, there's a risk of suboptimal pricing.

Public Impact

Naval warfare systems and personnel benefit from reliable IT infrastructure, ensuring operational readiness. Services delivered include facility operations and maintenance, crucial for the uptime of essential IT systems. The geographic impact is centered around the New Orleans, Louisiana area, where the contractor's facility is located. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for IT and facility maintenance professionals within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed competition information for this follow-on action raises concerns about optimal price discovery.
The extended contract duration necessitates careful monitoring to ensure continued value and relevance of services.
Performance metrics and quality of service delivery are not explicitly detailed, making value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Award to a large, experienced contractor like Lockheed Martin suggests a focus on reliability and established expertise.
The contract's origin as a follow-on to a competed action implies a foundation of prior vetting and competition.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming services are delivered as specified.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) sector, specifically under the sub-sector of 'Other Computer Related Services.' The market for IT facility operations and maintenance is substantial, driven by the increasing reliance of government agencies on robust and secure IT infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale IT support contracts within the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, looking at cost per square foot for facility maintenance or cost per server for IT operations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. is a large entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless subcontracting opportunities are pursued by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), as indicated by the 'sa' field. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's performance work statement and invoicing procedures. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense IT Infrastructure Support
Naval Systems IT Services
IT Facility Management
Computer Facilities Management Services
Information Technology Professional Services

Risk Flags

Lack of detailed competition information
Absence of performance metrics
Potential for technological obsolescence over contract duration
Unclear value-for-money assessment without benchmarks

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $39.6 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES, LLC. 200112!001927!1700!D0231 !SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS !N0003901C4100 !A!N!*!N! !20010125!20020930!805258373!805258373!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES INC !2339 ROUTE 70 WEST, FLOOR !CHERRY HILL !NJ!08002!55000!071!22!NEW ORLEANS !ORLEANS !LOUISIANA !+000003000000!N!N!000000000000!D301!ADP FACILITY OPERATION & MAINTENANCE SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541519!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LOCKHEED MARTIN SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $39.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-01-25. End: 2011-08-18.

What was the original competed action that this contract is a follow-on to, and what was the competition level and outcome of that original action?

The provided data states this contract is a 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION' (ct: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION). However, it does not specify the identifier or details of the original competed action. To fully assess the competition dynamics and taxpayer value, it would be essential to trace back to the original solicitation and award. This would involve searching contract databases for the initial award to Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. under the relevant contract vehicle, identifying the number of bidders, the evaluation criteria, and the final award price. Without this information, the 'competed' nature of the origin remains unsubstantiated from the provided snippet, potentially obscuring whether the initial competition led to optimal pricing or if this follow-on is leveraging a less competitive situation.

How does the per-unit cost or overall value of this contract compare to similar IT facility operations and maintenance contracts within the Department of Defense?

Direct per-unit cost comparison is not feasible with the provided data, as specific metrics like cost per server, cost per square foot of data center space, or cost per user are absent. The total award value of $39.6 million over approximately 10 years (from 2001 to 2011) averages to roughly $3.96 million per year. To benchmark this, one would need to access data on similar contracts for IT facility operations and maintenance awarded by the DoD during the same period or shortly after. Key comparison points would include the scope of services (e.g., power, cooling, physical security, network infrastructure maintenance), the size and criticality of the facilities supported, and the contractor's overhead structure. Without such comparative data, assessing whether this contract represents good or fair value is speculative.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of Lockheed Martin Services, Inc. in fulfilling this contract, and what has been their historical performance against these K

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or historical performance records for this contract. Typically, IT facility operations and maintenance contracts include metrics related to system uptime, response times for maintenance requests, incident resolution times, security compliance, and customer satisfaction. To assess the contractor's track record and the effectiveness of the services, one would need to review performance reports, quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs), and any past performance evaluations associated with this contract number (N0003901C4100). The absence of this information limits the ability to evaluate the actual value delivered beyond the contractual obligation.

What is the total historical spending by the Department of Defense on 'ADP Facility Operation & Maintenance Services' (or similar categories) over the past decade, and how does this contract fit into

The provided data snippet focuses on a single contract award. To understand the broader spending trend, a comprehensive analysis of federal procurement data (e.g., from FPDS or USASpending) would be required. This analysis should aggregate spending across the DoD and potentially other agencies for the Product Service Code (PSC) '541519' (Other Computer Related Services) or related codes like 'D301' (ADP Facility Operation & Maintenance Services) over the last 10-15 years. This would reveal the overall budget allocation towards such services, identify major contractors, and highlight any significant increases or decreases in spending. This specific $39.6 million contract, awarded in 2001, would represent a portion of the spending during its performance period (2001-2011) and would need to be contextualized within the larger spending landscape of that era.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-term (over 10 years) contract for IT facility operations and maintenance, particularly concerning technological obsolescence and changing security r

Long-term contracts for IT facility operations and maintenance carry inherent risks. Technological obsolescence is a primary concern; IT infrastructure and maintenance practices evolve rapidly. A contract spanning over a decade might lock the government into using outdated technologies or inefficient processes if not structured with flexibility. Security requirements are also constantly changing due to evolving cyber threats. Ensuring the contractor remains compliant with the latest security protocols and standards throughout the contract's life requires robust contract management and potentially frequent modifications. Furthermore, the risk of vendor lock-in increases over time, potentially reducing the government's leverage in future negotiations. Mitigating these risks typically involves incorporating clauses for technology refresh, regular reviews of security compliance, and performance-based metrics that adapt to changing needs.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Lockheed Martin Corp (UEI: 834951691)

Address: 2339 ROUTE 70 WEST, FLOOR, CHERRY HILL, NJ, 01

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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline