DoD awards $70M engineering services contract to Serco-IPS Corp for FFGX program

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $69,980,071 ($70.0M)

Contractor: Serco-Ips Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-08-19

End Date: 2025-05-31

Contract Duration: 2,112 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PMS515 FFGX PROGRAM.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20006

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $70.0 million to SERCO-IPS CORPORATION for work described as: ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PMS515 FFGX PROGRAM. Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 3. The duration of the contract is substantial, spanning over 2100 days, indicating a long-term need for these services. 4. The awardee, Serco-IPS Corporation, has secured a significant portion of the contract value. 5. The contract is for engineering services, a critical component for complex defense programs like FFGX. 6. The contract is a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $70 million contract for engineering services is challenging without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type introduces inherent risk for cost control. While CPFF can be appropriate for research and development or when costs are uncertain, it requires robust oversight to ensure value for money. Comparing this to similar engineering services contracts within the Department of Defense would provide a clearer picture of its cost-effectiveness.

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 5 bids suggests a reasonable level of competition for these specialized engineering services. A competitive process generally helps in achieving fair market prices and encourages contractors to offer their best value propositions.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process as it is intended to drive down costs and ensure the government receives the best possible services for the allocated funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and the FFGX program, which will receive essential engineering support. Services delivered include critical engineering expertise for the FFGX program, likely encompassing design, development, testing, and integration. The geographic impact is centered in Washington D.C., where the contract is managed and likely where some services will be performed. The contract supports a specialized workforce of engineers and technical professionals, contributing to the defense industrial base.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a vital component of the broader defense industrial base. The FFGX program represents a significant investment in naval capabilities, requiring specialized technical expertise. Spending on engineering services for major defense platforms can range from millions to billions of dollars, depending on the program's complexity and lifecycle stage. This $70 million award is a substantial but not extraordinary sum for such a critical support role within a major naval shipbuilding program.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. However, the prime contractor, Serco-IPS Corporation, may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized support, though this is not explicitly detailed in the provided information.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial and performance monitoring is expected to ensure costs remain justified and deliverables are met. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports and Inspector General involvement would depend on specific program requirements and any identified issues.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, engineering-services, full-and-open-competition, cost-plus-fixed-fee, delivery-order, washington-dc, major-contract, shipbuilding, ffgx-program

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $70.0 million to SERCO-IPS CORPORATION. ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR PMS515 FFGX PROGRAM.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SERCO-IPS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $70.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-08-19. End: 2025-05-31.

What is the track record of Serco-IPS Corporation with similar Department of Defense engineering contracts?

Serco-IPS Corporation has a history of performing various service contracts for the U.S. government, including those within the defense sector. While specific details on their track record with FFGX-like programs require deeper database analysis, their presence as a bidder and awardee on significant contracts suggests established capabilities. Reviewing past performance evaluations, contract modifications, and any disputes or terminations associated with Serco-IPS's prior defense engineering contracts would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and expertise in delivering complex technical solutions. This includes assessing their ability to manage budgets, adhere to schedules, and meet technical specifications on comparable projects.

How does the $70 million value compare to other engineering service contracts for naval programs of similar scale?

The $70 million value for engineering services on the FFGX program appears to be within a reasonable range for a major naval platform development, especially considering the contract's duration extending to May 2025. However, a precise comparison requires benchmarking against contracts for similar frigates or other major surface combatants, factoring in the specific engineering phases (e.g., design, prototyping, testing). Without access to detailed cost breakdowns and scope of work for comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively assess if this represents superior or inferior value. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure also adds a layer of complexity to direct value comparisons, as the final cost can fluctuate based on actual expenses incurred.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for complex engineering services?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract for complex engineering services is the potential for cost overruns. While the contractor receives a fixed fee, the 'cost plus' component means the government reimburses the contractor's allowable costs. If the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, the government pays more, potentially exceeding the anticipated budget. This structure can reduce the contractor's incentive to control costs rigorously, as their profit (the fixed fee) remains constant regardless of cost efficiency. Effective risk mitigation requires robust government oversight, detailed cost tracking, and clear definition of allowable costs to ensure the government is not paying for inefficiencies or unnecessary expenses.

How effective are the current oversight mechanisms for this contract, given its CPFF structure and long duration?

The effectiveness of oversight for this CPFF contract hinges on the diligence of the Department of the Navy's program management and contracting officers. Robust oversight involves continuous monitoring of the contractor's incurred costs against the contract ceiling, regular reviews of technical progress, and validation of the necessity and reasonableness of all expenses. For a long-duration contract like this (over 2100 days), periodic re-evaluations of the program's direction and cost projections are crucial. The presence of an Inspector General's office within the DoD provides an additional layer of accountability, capable of conducting audits and investigations into potential fraud, waste, or abuse. However, the ultimate effectiveness depends on resource allocation and the proactive engagement of the government team.

What is the historical spending trend for engineering services related to naval shipbuilding programs within the Department of the Navy?

Historical spending on engineering services for naval shipbuilding programs within the Department of the Navy is substantial and fluctuates based on the number and scale of active shipbuilding initiatives. Major programs like destroyers, carriers, and submarines, as well as new classes like the FFGX, necessitate significant investments in design, systems engineering, integration, and lifecycle support. Trends often show increased spending during the design and initial construction phases, with ongoing needs for modernization and upgrades throughout a vessel's service life. Analyzing historical data reveals patterns of reliance on both internal government expertise and external contractors, with contract values often in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars for critical engineering support roles.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesArchitectural, Engineering, and Related ServicesEngineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT)PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N0016419R3002

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12930 WORLDGATE DR STE 600, HERNDON, VA, 20170

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $70,068,878

Exercised Options: $70,068,878

Current Obligation: $69,980,071

Actual Outlays: $2,468,190

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 34

Total Subaward Amount: $29,595,296

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017804D4066

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2019-08-19

Current End Date: 2025-05-31

Potential End Date: 2025-05-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2025-07-01

More Contracts from Serco-Ips Corporation

View all Serco-Ips Corporation federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending