DoD's $19.2M Contract with Salient CRGT for Engineering Services: Incremental Funding and Navy-to-Army Transfer

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,197,563 ($19.2M)

Contractor: Salient Crgt, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-10-16

End Date: 2018-09-30

Contract Duration: 4,002 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: INCREMENTAL FUNDING AND TRANSFER FROM NAVY TO ARMY

Place of Performance

Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92121

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.2 million to SALIENT CRGT, INC. for work described as: INCREMENTAL FUNDING AND TRANSFER FROM NAVY TO ARMY Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Salient CRGT for $19.2 million focuses on engineering services, with funding transferred from the Navy to the Army. 2. Competition was conducted under a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' clause, suggesting a specific justification for limiting initial bidders. 3. The contract spans a significant duration from October 2007 to September 2018, indicating a long-term need for these engineering services. 4. The award type is a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, providing cost certainty for the government.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The firm fixed price structure provides some cost control. However, without specific per-unit cost data or comparison to similar contracts, a definitive assessment of value is difficult. The incremental funding approach also warrants scrutiny for potential cost creep over the extended period.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This implies that while competition was sought, initial sources were limited, potentially impacting the breadth of price discovery and the government's ability to secure the absolute lowest price.

Taxpayer Impact: The firm fixed price aims to control costs, but the extended duration and incremental funding could lead to higher overall taxpayer expenditure if not managed effectively.

Public Impact

Long-term engineering support for defense operations, impacting military readiness and technological development. Potential for significant taxpayer investment over the contract's extended lifespan. The 'exclusion of sources' clause raises questions about the initial competitive landscape and fairness. The transfer of funds from Navy to Army suggests a strategic reallocation of resources or a shift in operational priorities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Extended contract duration (over 10 years) increases risk of cost overruns and obsolescence.
Incremental funding can obscure total project cost and lead to budget challenges.
Limited initial competition may have reduced price competitiveness.
Lack of specific per-unit cost data hinders value assessment.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed price provides cost certainty for the awarded scope.
Definitive contract structure offers a clear framework for service delivery.
Long duration suggests a sustained and critical need for the services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, which is crucial for supporting complex defense projects. Spending benchmarks in this sector vary widely based on the specific services and duration, but large, long-term contracts like this represent significant government investment.

Small Business Impact

The data provided does not indicate whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors or prime contractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract's long duration and incremental funding necessitate robust oversight to ensure cost control, adherence to scope, and effective service delivery. Regular reviews and audits would be critical for accountability.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to long duration and incremental funding.
Limited initial competition may have resulted in suboptimal pricing.
Lack of transparency in total contract cost due to incremental funding.
Risk of service obsolescence over the 10+ year contract period.
Need for detailed justification for 'exclusion of sources'.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.2 million to SALIENT CRGT, INC.. INCREMENTAL FUNDING AND TRANSFER FROM NAVY TO ARMY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SALIENT CRGT, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $19.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-10-16. End: 2018-09-30.

What was the specific justification for excluding sources in the initial competition phase for this engineering services contract?

The justification for excluding sources typically relates to factors such as proprietary data, unique capabilities required, or urgent needs that limit the pool of potential offerors. Without the specific contract details or justification documentation, it's impossible to determine the precise reason. This exclusion warrants further investigation to ensure fair competition principles were upheld.

How did the incremental funding approach impact the overall cost-effectiveness and budget predictability of this long-term contract?

Incremental funding, while allowing for phased payments as funds become available, can complicate overall cost-effectiveness and budget predictability. It can obscure the total contract value, potentially leading to budget overruns if future funding is not secured or if costs escalate unexpectedly over the extended period. Effective management and clear communication regarding future funding are crucial.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract, and how did they contribute to the Army's mission objectives?

The provided data identifies the contract as being for 'Engineering Services' (NAICS 541330) and notes a transfer from Navy to Army funding. However, the specific nature of these services (e.g., design, analysis, testing, systems engineering) and their direct contribution to Army mission objectives are not detailed. Understanding the scope of work is essential for evaluating the contract's effectiveness and value.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4000 LEGATO RD STE 600, FAIRFAX, VA, 22033

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $19,500,152

Exercised Options: $19,210,028

Current Obligation: $19,197,563

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline