DoD's $39.7M Mobile Training Teams contract awarded to Bowhead Support Group LLC shows mixed value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,726,804 ($39.7M)

Contractor: Bowhead Support Group LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-09-16

End Date: 2018-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,571 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: CONTRACT W56HZV-11-C-0419 IS FOR THE MOBILE TRAINING TEAMS (MTT) AND FIELD LEVEL MANINTENANCE (MTT)SERVICES COVERING A PERFORMANCE PERIOD OF 16 SEPTEMBER 2011 - 15 SEPTEMBER 2014. THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS ONE BASE PERIOD AND 2 OPTION PERIODS. THIS CONTRACT IS A HYBRID COST PLUS FIXED FEE AND FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT.

Place of Performance

Location: ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99503

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $39.7 million to BOWHEAD SUPPORT GROUP LLC for work described as: CONTRACT W56HZV-11-C-0419 IS FOR THE MOBILE TRAINING TEAMS (MTT) AND FIELD LEVEL MANINTENANCE (MTT)SERVICES COVERING A PERFORMANCE PERIOD OF 16 SEPTEMBER 2011 - 15 SEPTEMBER 2014. THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS ONE BASE PERIOD AND 2 OPTION PERIODS. THIS CONTRACT IS A HYBRID COST PLUS FIX… Key points: 1. The contract's hybrid cost-plus-fixed-fee and firm-fixed-price structure suggests a balance between flexibility and cost control. 2. A performance period spanning 2011-2018 indicates a long-term need for these specialized training services. 3. The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' implying a specific justification for limiting bidders. 4. The total award value of $39.7 million over its duration requires careful benchmarking against similar training services. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests larger prime contractors were prioritized or met the requirements. 6. The contract's duration and scope may indicate a significant operational reliance on these training services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $39.7 million contract for Mobile Training Teams (MTT) and Field Level Maintenance is challenging without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns. The hybrid contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee and Firm Fixed Price) can sometimes lead to cost overruns in the cost-plus portions if not managed tightly. Comparing it to similar training contracts would require detailed analysis of the scope, duration, and specialized nature of the skills provided. The fixed-price components offer some cost certainty, but the overall value proposition depends heavily on the effectiveness and efficiency of the training delivered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This designation typically means that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, often due to specific requirements, security clearances, or proprietary technology. The number of bidders (9) indicates some level of competition, but the exclusion of sources limits the breadth of that competition. This could potentially impact price discovery, as a wider pool of bidders might drive prices down further.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition, despite being 'full and open' after exclusions, may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the lowest possible price achievable through a completely unrestricted bidding process.

Public Impact

Military personnel receive specialized training essential for maintaining equipment and operational readiness. The services provided ensure that field-level maintenance can be performed effectively, reducing downtime and improving equipment lifespan. The contract supports the operational capabilities of the Department of the Army across its deployed forces. Workforce implications include the employment of specialized instructors and support personnel for the training teams.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost creep in the Cost Plus Fixed Fee portions if not rigorously monitored.
The 'exclusion of sources' in competition limits the potential for broader market price discovery.
Lack of transparency on specific performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Long contract duration could indicate a lack of competitive re-evaluation over time.

Positive Signals

Hybrid contract structure balances flexibility with cost certainty.
Multiple bidders (9) indicate some level of market interest and capability.
Long-term contract suggests a sustained and critical need for these services.
Award to a single contractor implies they met all stringent requirements.

Sector Analysis

The Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330) is a broad category encompassing a wide range of technical and consulting services. Within this sector, specialized training and maintenance support for complex military systems represents a niche but critical area. The market for such services is often characterized by high barriers to entry due to security requirements, specialized knowledge, and the need for proven performance with government contracts. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type of equipment and training provided, but defense training services represent a significant portion of the overall federal engineering services spend.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). The award to Bowhead Support Group LLC, likely a larger entity given the contract value and scope, suggests that the requirements were geared towards prime contractors capable of managing extensive training operations. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, but for a contract of this nature and value, it is probable that opportunities for small businesses may exist within the supply chain, though not as a direct set-aside.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract's terms, including performance standards, reporting requirements, and payment schedules tied to deliverables. Transparency is often limited for defense contracts due to security and proprietary concerns, but contract award details and basic performance information are usually available through federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) services
Military Equipment Maintenance Support
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Training Contracts
Specialized Technical Training Services
Field Service Representative Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited competition due to source exclusion.
Potential for cost overruns in CPFF portion.
Lack of detailed performance metrics for value assessment.
Long contract duration without clear re-competition evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $39.7 million to BOWHEAD SUPPORT GROUP LLC. CONTRACT W56HZV-11-C-0419 IS FOR THE MOBILE TRAINING TEAMS (MTT) AND FIELD LEVEL MANINTENANCE (MTT)SERVICES COVERING A PERFORMANCE PERIOD OF 16 SEPTEMBER 2011 - 15 SEPTEMBER 2014. THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS ONE BASE PERIOD AND 2 OPTION PERIODS. THIS CONTRACT IS A HYBRID COST PLUS FIXED FEE AND FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOWHEAD SUPPORT GROUP LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $39.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-16. End: 2018-09-30.

What is the track record of Bowhead Support Group LLC with similar Department of Defense contracts?

Bowhead Support Group LLC has a history of securing various contracts with the Department of Defense, often in areas related to technical support, logistics, and specialized services. Analyzing their past performance on similar Mobile Training Team (MTT) or field maintenance contracts would be crucial. This includes examining contract values, performance reviews, any past disputes or contract modifications, and their success rate in fulfilling complex requirements. A review of their contract history would reveal their experience in managing large-scale training operations and their ability to meet stringent military standards, providing insight into their reliability and capability for the W56HZV-11-C-0419 contract.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee component of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar training services?

The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) portion of this contract allows the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. Benchmarking CPFF contracts is complex as the 'cost' element can vary significantly. For specialized military training, the fixed fee is often negotiated as a percentage of the estimated costs. Industry benchmarks suggest that fixed fees for complex services can range from 7-15% of projected costs, depending on risk, complexity, and contractor expertise. Without knowing the specific cost base and the negotiated fee for this contract, a direct comparison is difficult. However, the Army's contracting officers would have aimed to negotiate a fee that was fair and reasonable, reflecting the contractor's performance risk and the value of the services provided.

What are the primary risks associated with the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award type?

The primary risk associated with 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' is the potential for reduced competition, which can lead to higher prices for taxpayers. While it aims to be open, the exclusion criteria mean that only a subset of potential bidders is considered. This can occur if specific security clearances, proprietary knowledge, or unique capabilities are required that only a few firms possess. The risk is that the government might not receive the most competitive offers available in the broader market. Additionally, the justification for excluding sources needs to be robust to ensure fairness and prevent potential protests or accusations of impropriation.

How effective has Bowhead Support Group LLC been in delivering training services under this contract, based on available performance data?

Assessing the effectiveness of Bowhead Support Group LLC under this specific contract (W56HZV-11-C-0419) requires access to detailed performance reports, user feedback (e.g., from trainees and unit commanders), and any quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) data. Publicly available information often lacks these granular details. However, the contract's duration (2011-2018) and multiple option periods suggest a level of satisfaction or necessity that led to its continuation. Without specific performance metrics like training completion rates, skill proficiency improvements, or equipment readiness impacts, a definitive judgment on effectiveness is speculative. Further analysis would involve reviewing contract performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS reports) if accessible.

What has been the historical spending trend for Mobile Training Teams (MTT) and Field Level Maintenance services within the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on Mobile Training Teams (MTT) and Field Level Maintenance services within the Department of the Army is likely substantial and has probably trended upwards over the years, reflecting the increasing complexity of military equipment and the need for continuous readiness. These services are critical for maintaining operational effectiveness across various branches and weapon systems. Analyzing spending trends would involve looking at aggregate data for similar contract types (e.g., training services, technical support, maintenance contracts) awarded by the Army over the past decade or more. Factors influencing these trends include evolving military doctrine, new equipment fielding, geopolitical demands, and budget allocations. This specific contract represents a portion of that broader spending category.

What is the significance of the contract being a hybrid Cost Plus Fixed Fee and Firm Fixed Price type?

The hybrid nature of this contract (Cost Plus Fixed Fee and Firm Fixed Price) indicates a strategic approach to managing different aspects of the service delivery. The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) component likely applies to well-defined tasks where costs can be accurately estimated, providing cost certainty for the government. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) component is typically used for services that are less defined, involve higher risk, or require flexibility, such as research, development, or complex training scenarios where costs are harder to predict upfront. The CPFF allows the contractor to be reimbursed for actual costs incurred, plus a negotiated fixed fee, incentivizing efficient cost management while ensuring the service is performed. This structure aims to balance cost control with the need for flexibility and performance in specialized training and maintenance.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W56HZV11R0070

Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4900 SEMINARY RD STE 1200, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22311

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $46,297,885

Exercised Options: $39,726,804

Current Obligation: $39,726,804

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline