DoD's $18.7M contract for program support awarded to CSRA LLC shows fair value with 1 bid

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,700,000 ($18.7M)

Contractor: Csra LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-28

End Date: 2007-09-28

Contract Duration: 365 days

Daily Burn Rate: $51.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE)

Sector: Defense

Official Description: CN PROGRAM SUPPORT JAF

Place of Performance

Location: LANHAM, PRINCE GEORGE'S County, MARYLAND, 20706

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.7 million to CSRA LLC for work described as: CN PROGRAM SUPPORT JAF Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process. 2. The single bid received suggests potential limitations in market interest or contractor availability for this specific service. 3. The contract duration of one year with a value of $18.7M implies a significant annual spend. 4. The award was made to CSRA LLC, a known entity in government contracting. 5. The engineering services NAICS code (541330) points to specialized technical support. 6. The contract was awarded as Other Direct Costs (ODC), which can sometimes lead to less predictable final costs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $18.7 million for one year of program support, awarded to CSRA LLC, appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized engineering services. However, with only one bid received, a direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. The absence of competing bids might suggest that the pricing, while accepted, may not have been aggressively driven down by market forces. Further analysis would require benchmarking against other contracts for similar program support services within the Department of Defense.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, which is the preferred method for maximizing competition. However, only one bid was received. This could indicate that the scope of work was highly specialized, the required qualifications were very specific, or perhaps the timing of the solicitation did not align with the availability of multiple interested contractors. The limited number of bidders restricts the ability to fully assess price discovery through competitive pressure.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition was utilized, the single bid limits the potential for taxpayer savings that typically arise from robust competition. The government secured a service, but the lack of multiple offers means the full benefit of competitive pricing may not have been realized.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Army, which receives essential program support services. The services delivered likely contribute to the effective management and execution of specific military programs. The geographic impact is centered around the contract's performance location, likely within a military installation or agency office. The contract supports specialized engineering roles, potentially impacting a skilled workforce within the defense sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition (one bid) may have resulted in a higher price than if multiple bids were received.
The contract type (ODC) can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not carefully managed.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the quality of services delivered.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, adhering to best practices for government procurement.
Contract awarded to a known entity (CSRA LLC) with experience in government services.
The contract addresses a specific need for program support within the Department of the Army.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting defense programs. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by the continuous need for technical expertise in areas such as systems development, program management, and operational support. Benchmarking this contract's value would involve comparing it to other contracts for similar program management and engineering support within the Department of Defense and other federal agencies, considering factors like contract duration, scope, and required expertise.

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 for small businesses stemming from a set-aside requirement. The prime contractor, CSRA LLC, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors, but this is not mandated by the contract's award terms.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's statement of work and performance standards. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, which provide basic information on contract details, value, and awardee. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Program Management Support
Engineering and Technical Services
Department of Defense IT Services
Army Logistics Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for Higher Cost due to Single Bid
Contract Type (ODC) requires close monitoring

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.7 million to CSRA LLC. CN PROGRAM SUPPORT JAF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CSRA 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 $18.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-28. End: 2007-09-28.

What is the track record of CSRA LLC in performing similar Department of Defense contracts?

CSRA LLC, now part of General Dynamics Information Technology (GDIT), has a significant history of performing various contracts for the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Their portfolio often includes IT services, systems engineering, program management, and mission support. Analyzing their past performance on similar program support contracts would involve reviewing contract performance reports (CPARS), any past performance questionnaires, and the number and types of awards they have received. A review of their contract history would likely show extensive experience in delivering complex services to defense clients, though specific details on quality and timeliness would depend on detailed performance data not available in this summary.

How does the value of this contract compare to other engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of the Army?

The $18.7 million value for a one-year program support contract is substantial, reflecting the specialized nature of engineering services. To benchmark this, one would compare it against other contracts awarded by the Department of the Army for similar NAICS codes (e.g., 541330) and service scopes. Factors such as contract duration, specific technical requirements, geographic location, and the level of competition would influence pricing. Given this was a single bid, it's harder to definitively say if it represents optimal value compared to a multi-bid scenario. However, if similar one-year contracts for comparable services typically range from $15M to $25M, then this award would be considered within a fair market range.

What are the primary risks associated with a contract awarded under full and open competition with only one bid?

The primary risk associated with a full and open competition that yields only one bid is the potential for a suboptimal price. Without competing offers, the government loses the leverage that multiple bidders provide to drive down costs through competitive pressure. This could lead to the government paying more than necessary for the services. Another risk is that the single bidder might have less incentive to perform at the highest level, knowing there are no immediate alternatives. Furthermore, it raises questions about the market's capacity or interest in providing such services, potentially indicating a niche market or barriers to entry that could affect future procurements.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' award type in ensuring value for taxpayer money in this specific case?

The 'full and open competition' award type is designed to maximize competition and thus ensure the best value for taxpayer money. In this specific case, while the *intent* was to achieve best value through competition, the outcome of only one bid significantly diminishes its effectiveness. The government technically followed the process, but the lack of multiple proposals meant that the competitive dynamics that typically drive down prices and encourage innovation were absent. Therefore, while the process was followed, the actual realization of taxpayer value is questionable compared to a scenario with multiple, competing bids.

What is the historical spending trend for program support services within the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on program support services within the Department of the Army is substantial and generally trends upwards, reflecting the increasing complexity of military operations and the need for specialized expertise. This category often encompasses a wide range of services, including technical support, management consulting, and administrative functions. Analyzing specific historical spending patterns would require examining aggregate data for relevant NAICS codes and contract types over several fiscal years. Factors such as budget allocations, strategic priorities, and the outsourcing of certain functions influence these trends. This $18.7M contract represents a single data point within that broader spending landscape.

What are the implications of the contract being awarded as 'Other Direct Costs (ODC)'?

Awarding a contract with 'Other Direct Costs' (ODC) means that direct costs incurred by the contractor for performing the work (like travel, materials, or subcontractor expenses) are billed directly to the government. This contrasts with fixed-price components where the contractor assumes more risk for cost overruns. While ODC can provide flexibility for unforeseen expenses, it also shifts more cost risk to the government. Effective management and oversight are crucial to ensure that ODC are reasonable, allocable, and necessary for contract performance, preventing potential cost creep and ensuring that the final cost aligns with the expected value.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE) (2)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Computer Sciences Corporation (UEI: 009581091)

Address: 7700 HUBBLE DR, LANHAM SEABROOK, MD, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,700,000

Exercised Options: $18,700,000

Current Obligation: $18,700,000

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS23F0092K

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline