The MIL Corporation awarded $15M for RDT&E tasking by the Department of the Navy, with a 5-year period of performance

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,046,012 ($15.0M)

Contractor: THE MIL Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2021-04-16

End Date: 2026-04-15

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: LABOR - RDT&E TASKING

Place of Performance

Location: BOWIE, PRINCE GEORGES County, MARYLAND, 20716

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.0 million to THE MIL CORPORATION for work described as: LABOR - RDT&E TASKING Key points: 1. Value for money is assessed through benchmarking against similar engineering services contracts. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open competition, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators include the cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type, which can incentivize cost growth. 4. Performance context is RDT&E tasking, requiring specialized engineering expertise. 5. Sector positioning is within the Defense sector, specifically supporting the Department of the Navy's research and development efforts.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, while common for RDT&E, carries inherent risks of cost overruns if not managed diligently. Benchmarking against similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense would provide a clearer picture of whether the fixed fee and estimated costs are competitive. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the CPFF type suggests a focus on achieving technical objectives over strict cost control.

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 offers. The number of bidders is not specified, but this method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and innovation. The Department of the Navy's decision to use full and open competition suggests confidence in the market's ability to provide qualified contractors for these specialized engineering services.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the potential for competitive pricing and a wider pool of innovative solutions when contracts are competed openly. This approach helps ensure that government funds are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from specialized engineering services to support its research, development, testing, and evaluation initiatives. This contract likely supports advanced technological development within the defense sector. The geographic impact is primarily centered around the Navy's operational and research facilities, potentially in Maryland where the contractor is based. Workforce implications include the creation or sustainment of highly skilled engineering jobs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess efficiency and effectiveness.
The duration of the contract (5 years) requires sustained oversight to ensure continued value.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
The contractor, The MIL Corporation, is likely experienced in providing engineering services to the government.
The contract supports critical RDT&E efforts for the Department of the Navy.

Sector Analysis

The engineering services sector supporting the Department of Defense is a significant market, characterized by specialized expertise and long-term contracts. This contract falls within the broader category of professional, scientific, and technical services, which are essential for defense research and development. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other RDT&E contracts for engineering services awarded to similar-sized firms by agencies like the Navy or other branches of the DoD.

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 arising from a set-aside provision. However, the prime contractor, The MIL Corporation, may engage small businesses as subcontractors depending on their own procurement strategies and the specific technical requirements of the RDT&E tasks.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contract administration team within the Department of the Navy. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including reporting requirements and performance standards. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS-NG, though detailed task orders and performance reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
Navy Engineering Services
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Risk (CPFF)
Performance Monitoring Challenges (RDT&E)
Potential for Scope Creep

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.0 million to THE MIL CORPORATION. LABOR - RDT&E TASKING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE MIL 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 $15.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-04-16. End: 2026-04-15.

What is The MIL Corporation's track record with the Department of the Navy and similar RDT&E contracts?

Assessing The MIL Corporation's track record requires a review of their past performance on contracts with the Department of the Navy and other federal agencies, particularly those involving Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E) tasking. This would involve examining past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and the successful completion of similar projects. A history of successful project delivery, adherence to budget, and positive stakeholder feedback would indicate a strong track record. Conversely, a pattern of cost overruns, missed deadlines, or performance deficiencies would raise concerns about their capability to execute this current $15 million contract effectively over its five-year period.

How does the estimated cost of this contract compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

To benchmark the value of this $15 million contract, a comparative analysis of similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense is necessary. This would involve identifying contracts with comparable scope, complexity, duration, and contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) awarded to firms of similar size and capability. Factors such as the labor rates, overhead, and fixed fee percentages would be key comparison points. If this contract's estimated costs or fixed fee appear significantly higher than the average for comparable services, it could indicate a potential lack of competitive pricing or inefficiencies in the cost estimation process. Conversely, costs aligned with or below the benchmark would suggest good value.

What are the primary risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this RDT&E effort?

The primary risk associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for RDT&E efforts is the potential for cost growth. While the fixed fee provides the contractor with an incentive to control costs to maximize profit, the government bears the risk of all allowable costs exceeding the estimate. If the scope of work expands, unforeseen technical challenges arise, or the contractor's cost estimation is inaccurate, the total contract cost can increase significantly. Effective oversight, robust cost tracking, and clear definition of work requirements are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives value for its investment. The CPFF structure is often used when RDT&E involves significant uncertainty.

How effective are the current oversight mechanisms in place for this contract to ensure performance and prevent cost overruns?

The effectiveness of oversight for this contract hinges on the Department of the Navy's established procedures for managing CPFF contracts, particularly those involving RDT&E. Key oversight mechanisms include regular progress reviews, detailed cost reporting and analysis, technical performance monitoring, and the designation of a strong Contracting Officer's Representative (COR). The COR plays a critical role in overseeing day-to-day performance and ensuring adherence to technical specifications. The effectiveness is further enhanced by the contractor's internal controls and transparency. Without specific details on the Navy's implementation of these mechanisms for this particular contract, a definitive assessment is difficult, but robust application of standard practices is expected.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services by the Department of the Navy, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns of the Department of the Navy for engineering services provides context for this $15 million contract. The Navy consistently invests substantial funds in engineering and technical support to maintain its fleet, develop new platforms, and conduct research. This contract, focused on RDT&E tasking, represents a portion of that broader investment. Understanding the trend—whether spending on such services is increasing, decreasing, or stable—can indicate market conditions and the Navy's strategic priorities. This specific contract's value and duration should be evaluated against the typical size and frequency of similar awards to determine if it aligns with historical norms or represents a significant deviation.

What are the implications of awarding this contract under 'full and open competition' for price discovery and taxpayer value?

Awarding this contract under 'full and open competition' has significant implications for price discovery and taxpayer value. This procurement method allows any responsible source to submit an offer, maximizing the number of potential bidders. A larger pool of bidders generally leads to more robust competition, driving down prices as contractors vie for the award. This process enhances price discovery by revealing the market rate for the required engineering services. For taxpayers, this means a higher likelihood of obtaining services at a fair and reasonable price, minimizing the risk of paying inflated costs due to limited competition. It also encourages innovation as contractors compete not just on price but also on technical solutions.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N0042118R0053

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4000 MITCHELLVILLE RD STE A210, BOWIE, MD, 20716

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,365,459

Exercised Options: $16,365,459

Current Obligation: $15,046,012

Actual Outlays: $1,856,120

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 55

Total Subaward Amount: $7,808,230

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0042121D0010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline