DoD's $86.4M technical support contract with SEACORP, LLC shows fair value despite limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $86,423,040 ($86.4M)

Contractor: Seacorp, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-09-15

End Date: 2025-08-21

Contract Duration: 4,723 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: CODE 34 TECHNICAL SUPPORT IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: MIDDLETOWN, NEWPORT County, RHODE ISLAND, 02842

State: Rhode Island Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $86.4 million to SEACORP, LLC for work described as: CODE 34 TECHNICAL SUPPORT IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of technical support services. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with potential for cost overruns in cost-plus contracts. 4. Performance context is critical for assessing long-term value and contractor effectiveness. 5. This contract fits within the broader Defense sector's need for specialized engineering services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $86.4 million over its extended period suggests a moderate annual spend. Benchmarking against similar technical support contracts within the Department of Defense is challenging without more granular data on service specifics. However, the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates careful oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and do not escalate beyond initial projections. The fixed fee component provides some predictability, but the variable cost elements require diligent management.

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. While the specific number of bidders is not provided, this method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and terms for the government. The use of this procurement method suggests that the agency sought to maximize competition to achieve the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and encourages a wider pool of contractors to bid, potentially driving down costs.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from specialized technical support, enhancing operational capabilities. Services delivered likely include engineering, maintenance, and logistical support for defense systems. The geographic impact is primarily within Rhode Island, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for skilled technical and engineering professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The engineering services sector within the defense industry is characterized by high specialization and significant government spending. Companies like SEACORP, LLC provide critical support that enables the operation and maintenance of complex military systems. This contract represents a portion of the broader federal spending on technical and engineering services, which is essential for national security. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without detailed service breakdowns, but the overall market for defense engineering services is substantial.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this specific contract, as the 'sb' field is false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. This suggests that the prime contract was likely awarded to a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless SEACORP, LLC actively engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. Accountability measures are inherent in the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, requiring detailed reporting and justification of costs. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases, though specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

defense, department-of-defense, engineering-services, technical-support, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, rhode-island, large-contract, long-term-contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $86.4 million to SEACORP, LLC. CODE 34 TECHNICAL SUPPORT IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SEACORP, 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 $86.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-15. End: 2025-08-21.

What is SEACORP, LLC's track record with the Department of Defense on similar technical support contracts?

SEACORP, LLC has a history of performing technical support and engineering services for the Department of Defense. While specific details on past performance for contracts of this exact scope and value are not fully detailed in the provided data, their sustained engagement suggests a level of capability and reliability. Analyzing their performance on prior DoD contracts, including on-time delivery, quality of service, and adherence to budget, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their track record. Government contract databases and past performance reviews, where available, would be the primary sources for this information. Their ability to secure and maintain contracts of this magnitude indicates a capacity to meet DoD requirements.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to similar technical support contracts within the DoD?

The total contract value is approximately $86.4 million over roughly 13 years (from 2012 to 2025), averaging around $6.6 million per year. Direct comparison to similar technical support contracts within the DoD is challenging without specific details on the scope of services, labor mix, and complexity. However, this annual figure appears moderate for specialized technical support within the defense sector, which often involves high-skilled labor and complex systems. Benchmarking would require identifying contracts with comparable service descriptions, contract types (e.g., cost-plus-fixed-fee), and the specific defense platforms or systems being supported. Without such granular data, a precise value-for-money assessment relative to peers is difficult.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this cost-plus-fixed-fee contract?

The primary risk indicator for this cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract is the potential for cost overruns. In a CPFF structure, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. If costs escalate beyond initial estimates due to inefficiencies, scope creep, or unforeseen technical challenges, the total contract value could increase significantly, exceeding the initially allocated budget. Effective oversight by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) is crucial to monitor costs, ensure allowability, and prevent unnecessary expenditures. Another risk is the contractor's ability to maintain performance over the extended contract duration, potentially leading to decreased efficiency or quality if not managed proactively.

How effective has SEACORP, LLC been in delivering the technical support outlined in this contract?

Assessing the effectiveness of SEACORP, LLC's delivery under this contract requires access to performance metrics, quality assurance reports, and user feedback from the Department of Defense. The provided data does not include these specific performance indicators. However, the contract's extension and continued funding suggest a baseline level of satisfactory performance. To fully evaluate effectiveness, one would need to examine metrics such as on-time completion of tasks, adherence to technical specifications, responsiveness to issues, and overall contribution to the DoD's mission objectives. Government performance evaluations and contract close-out reports would offer more definitive insights.

What are the historical spending patterns for technical support services within the relevant DoD agency or program?

Historical spending patterns for technical support services within the relevant DoD agency or program would reveal trends in contract awards, total obligated amounts, and average annual expenditures over time. Analyzing this data could indicate whether spending on technical support has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. It would also highlight the typical contract vehicles used (e.g., IDIQs, specific task orders) and the average duration and value of such contracts. Understanding these patterns provides context for the current $86.4 million contract, helping to determine if it aligns with historical norms or represents a significant deviation. This analysis requires access to historical contract databases and budget information for the specific agency or program.

What is the potential impact of the fixed fee on contractor performance and cost control?

The fixed fee in a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract is intended to incentivize the contractor to control costs while ensuring a predictable profit margin. Since the fee is fixed, any cost savings achieved by the contractor do not increase their profit, and cost overruns do not decrease it (though they may impact future contract awards). This structure can motivate efficiency, as the contractor bears the risk of cost increases beyond what is covered by the contract's ceiling. However, it can also lead to a focus on meeting minimum requirements rather than exceeding them, potentially impacting innovation or proactive problem-solving. The effectiveness of the fixed fee depends heavily on the initial estimate accuracy and the government's oversight.

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: N0002411R3069

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 62 JOHNNY CAKE HILL RD, MIDDLETOWN, RI, 02842

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $89,659,805

Exercised Options: $89,659,804

Current Obligation: $86,423,040

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 28

Total Subaward Amount: $27,918,577

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017804D4122

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2012-09-15

Current End Date: 2025-08-21

Potential End Date: 2025-08-21 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2025-09-16

More Contracts from Seacorp, LLC

View all Seacorp, LLC federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending