DoD's $24.3M contract for life cycle support services awarded to M.C. Dean, Inc. for European naval facilities

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,260,811 ($24.3M)

Contractor: M. C. Dean, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2021-05-28

End Date: 2026-05-27

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: LIFE CYCLE SUPPORT SERVICES FOR ESS SUSTAINMENT AT CNREURAFSWA SITES AT NSA, NAVSTA, NAS, AND CLDJ.

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.3 million to M. C. DEAN, INC. for work described as: LIFE CYCLE SUPPORT SERVICES FOR ESS SUSTAINMENT AT CNREURAFSWA SITES AT NSA, NAVSTA, NAS, AND CLDJ. Key points: 1. Contract provides essential sustainment services for critical naval infrastructure in Europe. 2. M.C. Dean, Inc. has a significant track record in complex engineering and support services. 3. The contract's duration of five years suggests a need for long-term, stable support. 4. Full and open competition was utilized, indicating a broad market search for qualified bidders. 5. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) allows for flexibility but requires careful cost oversight. 6. Performance is tied to specific naval support activity locations, highlighting geographic concentration. 7. The contract value is substantial, reflecting the critical nature of the services provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $24.3 million over five years for life cycle support services at European naval facilities appears reasonable given the scope and criticality of the work. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering and facility support contracts for military installations, this pricing falls within expected ranges. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while offering flexibility for evolving requirements, necessitates robust cost tracking and management to ensure value for money. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparisons to prior contracts for these exact sites, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the overall investment aligns with the strategic importance of maintaining these overseas facilities.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that the Department of the Navy actively sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of two bidders indicates a degree of competition, though the exact number of proposals received and the evaluation process details are not provided. A competitive process like this is generally expected to drive better pricing and service offerings as contractors vie for the award. The limited number of bidders could suggest a specialized market or high barriers to entry for this type of complex support.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it promotes a competitive environment, which typically leads to more favorable pricing and encourages innovation from multiple contractors.

Public Impact

Naval forces operating in and around European naval facilities benefit from reliable infrastructure and support services. The contract ensures the operational readiness and sustainment of critical naval installations in Europe. Geographic impact is concentrated on NSA, NAVSTA, and NAS sites within the European Command area. The contract supports specialized engineering and technical roles, potentially impacting the civilian workforce in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not meticulously managed and monitored.
Limited competition (two bidders) may indicate potential for higher pricing than a more robustly contested bid.
The long duration of the contract could present challenges in adapting to rapidly changing technological needs or geopolitical landscapes.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical sustainment services creates a potential single point of failure risk.

Positive Signals

Award to M.C. Dean, Inc., a known entity in complex engineering and infrastructure support, suggests a level of confidence in their capabilities.
Full and open competition, even with two bidders, demonstrates an effort to leverage market forces for the best value.
The contract's focus on sustainment implies a commitment to long-term operational readiness for naval forces.
Clear definition of service locations (NSA, NAVSTA, NAS) provides a focused scope for performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a broad category encompassing a wide range of professional services related to the design, development, and application of engineering principles. The market for defense-related engineering and facility support services is substantial, driven by the global operational needs of military branches. This specific contract addresses the sustainment of critical infrastructure for the U.S. Navy in Europe, a vital component of national defense strategy. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale, long-term support contracts for overseas military installations, which often represent significant investments due to logistical complexities and security requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits for small businesses stemming from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, M.C. Dean, Inc., is likely a large business. While not mandated by a set-aside, large prime contractors often engage small businesses for subcontracting opportunities, but the extent of this is not detailed in the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on M.C. Dean's subcontracting strategy, which is not specified here.

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 oversight is crucial to monitor expenditures against the fixed fee and ensure cost reasonableness. Transparency is facilitated through contract reporting mechanisms and performance reviews. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse. The contract's duration and overseas location may necessitate specific oversight protocols to address logistical and security challenges.

Related Government Programs

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Contracts
Department of Defense Overseas Infrastructure Support
European Command (EUCOM) Support Contracts
Naval Station Maintenance and Operations
Life Cycle Support Services for Military Assets

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Limited competition may impact price competitiveness.
Long contract duration could lead to obsolescence or inflexibility.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical services.
Overseas operations introduce logistical and security risks.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.3 million to M. C. DEAN, INC.. LIFE CYCLE SUPPORT SERVICES FOR ESS SUSTAINMENT AT CNREURAFSWA SITES AT NSA, NAVSTA, NAS, AND CLDJ.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is M. C. DEAN, 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 $24.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-05-28. End: 2026-05-27.

What is M.C. Dean, Inc.'s track record with the Department of Defense, particularly in providing similar life cycle support services in overseas locations?

M.C. Dean, Inc. has a substantial and long-standing history of providing complex engineering, integration, and support services to the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Their expertise often lies in critical infrastructure, including power systems, facility management, and security integration. They have been awarded numerous contracts, many of significant value, for work on military bases both domestically and internationally. Specifically concerning life cycle support services for naval facilities, M.C. Dean has experience in maintaining and sustaining operational readiness for critical infrastructure. Their involvement in overseas locations, such as those covered by this contract in Europe, is not uncommon given their capabilities in navigating the logistical, security, and regulatory complexities inherent in such environments. A detailed review of their contract history would reveal specific projects, performance ratings, and any past issues, but generally, they are considered a capable provider for large-scale defense support contracts.

How does the awarded value of $24.3 million compare to similar life cycle support contracts for naval facilities in Europe?

The awarded value of approximately $24.3 million over a five-year period for life cycle support services at European naval facilities represents an average annual value of roughly $4.86 million. Comparing this to similar contracts requires access to a database of comparable defense contracts, which is not directly available here. However, based on general knowledge of defense contracting, this value appears moderate for comprehensive sustainment services at multiple significant naval installations overseas. Factors such as the specific scope of services (e.g., electrical, mechanical, HVAC, IT infrastructure, security systems), the size and criticality of the facilities, and the prevailing labor and material costs in the European theater would influence the overall price. Contracts for major overseas base operations or sustainment can range from millions to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on scale. This contract's value suggests a focused scope of essential sustainment rather than a complete base operations support package.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this type of service, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee. If costs escalate beyond initial projections, the government bears the burden of these increased expenses, while the contractor's profit (the fixed fee) remains constant. This can lead to reduced value for money if not managed effectively. Mitigation strategies are crucial and typically include robust government oversight of all incurred costs, detailed audits, strict adherence to the contract's definition of allowable costs, and regular performance reviews. The contracting officer must ensure that the contractor maintains efficient operations and controls expenses. Furthermore, the fixed fee itself incentivizes the contractor to complete the work within projected cost parameters to maximize their return on investment, although this incentive is less direct than in fixed-price contracts. Clear communication and a strong working relationship between the government and contractor are also vital for proactive risk management.

Given the 'full and open competition' with two bidders, what does this imply about the market for these specialized engineering services in Europe?

The fact that this contract was awarded under 'full and open competition' but only attracted two bidders suggests a potentially specialized or concentrated market for these specific life cycle support services at European naval facilities. This could indicate several factors: high barriers to entry, such as significant capital investment, specialized technical expertise, or established security clearances required to operate on naval bases; a limited number of companies possessing the necessary qualifications and capacity to undertake such a large and complex contract; or perhaps that the specific requirements of the solicitation were highly tailored, attracting only a few capable respondents. While competition is generally preferred, a low number of bidders can sometimes raise concerns about whether the full spectrum of market capabilities was reached or if the pricing might be less competitive than in a more crowded field. However, it's also possible that these two bidders were the only ones truly qualified and capable of meeting the stringent requirements.

What are the historical spending patterns for similar life cycle support services at European naval bases by the Department of the Navy?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar life cycle support services at European naval bases by the Department of the Navy requires access to extensive historical contract databases. Without direct access to such data, a precise historical comparison is not feasible. However, it is generally understood that the Department of the Navy consistently invests significant resources in maintaining its overseas infrastructure. Spending on sustainment, operations, and maintenance for facilities like those in Europe is a recurring budgetary item, often managed through multi-year contracts. The value of these contracts can fluctuate based on infrastructure upgrades, geopolitical conditions, and evolving operational requirements. Historically, large-scale support contracts for naval bases have been awarded to major defense contractors specializing in facilities management and engineering. The trend has often been towards longer-term contracts to ensure stability and continuity of services, reflecting the substantial and ongoing need for reliable support in strategic overseas locations.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N6523621R3022

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1765 GREENSBORO STATION PLACE SUITE 1400, TYSONS, VA, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,218,767

Exercised Options: $25,180,154

Current Obligation: $24,260,811

Actual Outlays: $708,151

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $97,099

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017819D8051

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline