State Department's $13.3M engineering services contract awarded to MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. raises value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,257,561 ($13.3M)

Contractor: Mantech Advanced Systems International, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2005-12-01

End Date: 2011-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,946 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: 1069-6Z3081

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22203

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $13.3 million to MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. for work described as: 1069-6Z3081 Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. Significant duration of nearly 2,000 days suggests a long-term need, but competition was not sought. 3. The contract type (Time and Materials) can lead to cost overruns if not closely managed. 4. Lack of competition and the contract type present potential risks to achieving optimal value for taxpayer funds. 5. Performance was rated 'satisfactory' (ST), indicating basic fulfillment of requirements but not necessarily exceptional performance. 6. The contract's value, while not exceptionally large in absolute terms, warrants scrutiny due to the procurement method.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this Time and Materials contract is challenging without detailed task orders and labor rates. However, the absence of competition for a nearly $13.3 million award over almost five years suggests that the government may not have secured the most competitive pricing. Comparing it to similar sole-source engineering services contracts awarded by the State Department or other agencies could reveal if the hourly rates and overall cost were in line with market expectations. The 'satisfactory' performance rating also implies that while requirements were met, there may not have been a strong incentive for cost-efficiency driven by competitive pressures.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning the Department of State did not solicit bids from multiple offerors. This approach is typically used when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement, often due to specialized expertise or unique circumstances. However, without a competitive process, it is difficult to ascertain the level of competition that could have been achieved or if alternative solutions were explored. The lack of bidders means that price discovery through market forces was bypassed.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers do not benefit from the cost savings that typically arise from a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to higher overall expenditures for government services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the personnel at MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. who provided engineering services. Services delivered likely supported specific Department of State operational or technical requirements, though the exact nature is not detailed. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the locations where the engineering services were performed, potentially within the United States or at diplomatic facilities. The contract supported jobs within the engineering services sector, contributing to the workforce of the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially impacting cost-effectiveness.
Time and Materials contract type carries inherent risk of cost escalation without strict oversight.
Lack of transparency regarding the justification for sole-source procurement.
Performance rated 'satisfactory' suggests room for improvement in efficiency or value delivery.
Long contract duration without competition raises questions about strategic sourcing.

Positive Signals

Contract was awarded and fulfilled, meeting the basic requirements of the Department of State.
Contractor's performance was rated as satisfactory, indicating compliance with contractual obligations.
The contract provided necessary engineering services to support government functions.

Sector Analysis

The engineering services sector is a broad category encompassing a wide range of specialized technical expertise. Federal spending in this area supports various government functions, from infrastructure development to complex system design and maintenance. Comparable spending benchmarks for engineering services vary widely based on the specific discipline (e.g., civil, electrical, mechanical, software) and the complexity of the project. This contract, valued at approximately $13.3 million over its duration, falls within a moderate spending range for specialized engineering support, but its sole-source nature warrants scrutiny against potential market alternatives.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have involved small business set-asides, as indicated by the 'sb': false field. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or actual subcontracting to small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is likely minimal, and it does not represent an opportunity for small business growth through prime contracting or subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of State's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would typically involve performance reviews, invoice approvals, and adherence to the terms of the Time and Materials contract. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and the specific services rendered is limited based on the provided data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Professional and Technical Services - Multiple Award Schedule
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules for Engineering Services
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) Oversight
Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS)

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Time and Materials contract type
Lack of competition
Potential for cost overruns
Satisfactory performance rating

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $13.3 million to MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.. 1069-6Z3081

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANTECH ADVANCED SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-12-01. End: 2011-03-31.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and classified as 'sole-source'. Typically, sole-source awards are justified when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the agency's needs. This could be due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling circumstances, or specific follow-on requirements where only the original contractor can provide the necessary services. Without access to the agency's justification documentation (e.g., a Justification and Approval document), the precise reason remains unknown. However, the lack of competition for a contract of this value and duration suggests a potential missed opportunity for cost savings through a competitive process.

How does the 'satisfactory' performance rating compare to other engineering services contracts?

A 'satisfactory' performance rating generally means that the contractor met the minimum requirements of the contract but did not necessarily exceed expectations or demonstrate exceptional performance. In the context of federal contracts, 'satisfactory' is often the baseline expectation. Compared to contracts with higher ratings (e.g., 'highly satisfactory' or 'exceptional'), a 'satisfactory' rating might suggest that the contractor fulfilled their obligations adequately but perhaps without significant innovation, efficiency gains, or proactive problem-solving. For a sole-source contract, this rating is particularly important as it indicates the government received the expected level of service, but it doesn't provide evidence of superior value compared to what might have been achieved through competition.

What are the potential risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract of this duration?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts, especially those spanning nearly five years (1946 days), carry inherent risks of cost escalation. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M contracts reimburse the contractor for the actual cost of labor (at specified hourly rates) and materials, plus a fixed fee or profit. If not managed diligently with robust oversight, contractors may have less incentive to control costs, potentially leading to expenditures exceeding initial estimates. For a sole-source T&M contract, these risks are amplified as there is no competitive pressure to drive efficiency or lower rates. The government must ensure strict monitoring of hours, labor categories, and material costs to mitigate overspending.

What is the typical market rate for engineering services similar to those provided under this contract?

Determining the precise market rate for engineering services without knowing the specific discipline (e.g., software engineering, civil engineering, systems engineering) and the required skill level is difficult. However, federal agencies often use established wage determinations (like the Service Contract Act) or conduct market research to benchmark rates. For a contract awarded in late 2005, average hourly rates for experienced engineers could range from $100 to $250+, depending on specialization and location. The 'satisfactory' performance rating and sole-source nature of this contract make it challenging to definitively state if the rates paid were competitive. Without specific task order details, a direct per-unit cost comparison is not feasible.

How does the $13.3 million total award value compare to other State Department engineering contracts?

The total award value of approximately $13.3 million over nearly five years places this contract in the mid-tier range for engineering services within the Department of State. The State Department, like other large federal agencies, procures a wide spectrum of engineering services, from small, specialized consulting tasks to large-scale infrastructure projects. Contracts can range from tens of thousands to hundreds of millions of dollars. While $13.3 million is a significant sum, it is not exceptionally large in the context of overall federal spending on engineering. However, the sole-source award method for this amount warrants scrutiny, as larger contracts often benefit more substantially from competitive bidding.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Mantech International Corporation (UEI: 053518312)

Address: 12015 LEE JACKSON HWY, FAIRFAX, VA, 11

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,257,561

Exercised Options: $13,257,561

Current Obligation: $13,257,561

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SAQMPD05A1105

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline