Army awards $7.88M for fish passage design, with a 1,692-day performance period

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $7,875,527 ($7.9M)

Contractor: Stanley Consultants, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-09-26

End Date: 2027-05-15

Contract Duration: 1,692 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: AE SERVICES LD22 FISH PASSAGE DESIGN

Place of Performance

Location: ROCK ISLAND, ROCK ISLAND County, ILLINOIS, 61201

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $7.9 million to STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC. for work described as: AE SERVICES LD22 FISH PASSAGE DESIGN Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for specialized engineering services over a multi-year period. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services. 3. Long performance duration may introduce risks related to scope creep or changing requirements. 4. Firm fixed-price contract shifts risk to the contractor, potentially impacting initial pricing. 5. Engineering services sector is competitive, with many firms capable of performing this work. 6. Contract awarded to a single entity, indicating a focused scope or specific expertise required.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $7.88 million for engineering services over approximately 4.6 years is within a reasonable range for complex design projects. Benchmarking against similar federal contracts for environmental engineering and design services would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the government has a clear understanding of the scope, and the contractor has accepted the risk of cost overruns.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. This method typically fosters a competitive environment, leading to better pricing and quality. The award to a single entity suggests that while competition was broad, Stanley Consultants, Inc. presented the most advantageous offer based on the evaluation criteria.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs and encouraging innovation among contractors, ensuring the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

Benefits federal agencies involved in environmental compliance and infrastructure projects. Delivers specialized engineering design services for fish passage infrastructure. Geographic impact is likely focused on areas requiring fish passage solutions, potentially nationwide. Workforce implications include employment for engineers, environmental scientists, and design professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long performance period (1,692 days) could lead to scope creep or outdated designs if not managed effectively.
Firm fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to higher initial bids to account for contractor risk.
Reliance on a single contractor for a multi-year project could pose a risk if performance issues arise.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust market and competitive pricing.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Specialized nature of the work indicates a focus on critical environmental infrastructure needs.

Sector Analysis

The engineering services sector is a significant part of the federal procurement landscape, encompassing a wide range of specialized expertise. This contract falls within the broader category of environmental and civil engineering, often related to infrastructure development and regulatory compliance. Spending in this sector is driven by government needs for design, planning, and oversight of public works and environmental projects.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates no small business participation (sb: false). This suggests the primary award went to a larger entity, and there is no explicit requirement for subcontracting with small businesses under this specific award. Further analysis would be needed to determine if the prime contractor has a history of subcontracting with small businesses on other projects.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Army contracting and technical teams. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of cost control. Transparency is facilitated through federal procurement databases where contract awards are published. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Environmental Engineering Services
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Programs
Army Corps of Engineers Projects
Infrastructure Design Contracts

Risk Flags

Long performance period may increase risk of scope creep or design obsolescence.
Firm Fixed Price contract requires careful contractor bid analysis for adequate contingency.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $7.9 million to STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC.. AE SERVICES LD22 FISH PASSAGE DESIGN

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $7.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-09-26. End: 2027-05-15.

What is the historical spending by the Department of the Army on fish passage design services?

Historical spending data for fish passage design services by the Department of the Army is not directly available in this dataset. However, the Army Corps of Engineers, a primary component of the Department of the Army, is heavily involved in water resource management and infrastructure projects that often include considerations for fish passage. Analyzing broader contract categories such as 'Engineering Services' (NAICS 541330) awarded by the Army over the past several fiscal years would provide context. For instance, if the Army consistently awards multi-million dollar contracts for environmental and civil engineering design related to aquatic ecosystems, this $7.88 million award would align with established spending patterns. Without specific historical data on 'fish passage design,' a proxy analysis of related environmental engineering contracts would be necessary to establish a spending benchmark.

How does the awarded amount compare to similar fish passage design contracts?

Comparing the $7.88 million award for fish passage design requires access to a database of similar federal contracts. Given the 1,692-day (approximately 4.6 years) performance period, this represents a significant, long-term design effort. Contracts for large-scale environmental engineering projects, especially those involving complex hydraulic and ecological considerations like fish passage, can range from hundreds of thousands to several million dollars. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a well-defined scope. If similar multi-year, comprehensive fish passage design projects awarded under full and open competition typically fall within the $5-10 million range, then this award appears competitive. However, without direct comparable contract data, this assessment remains preliminary.

What are the key risks associated with a 1,692-day performance period for a design contract?

A performance period of 1,692 days (over 4.5 years) for a design contract introduces several potential risks. Firstly, the risk of scope creep is elevated; as the project progresses, requirements may evolve due to new environmental regulations, changing ecological conditions, or updated project objectives, potentially leading to cost increases or delays if not managed strictly. Secondly, technological advancements or changes in best practices within engineering and environmental science could render the initial design partially obsolete by the time construction begins. Thirdly, contractor performance consistency over such a long duration can be a concern; key personnel might leave, or institutional knowledge could diminish. Finally, for a firm fixed-price contract, the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns due to unforeseen issues that arise over the extended period, which could incentivize them to inflate initial bids or potentially cut corners if not rigorously overseen.

What is Stanley Consultants, Inc.'s track record with federal fish passage or environmental engineering contracts?

Assessing Stanley Consultants, Inc.'s track record requires accessing federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) to review their past performance on similar contracts. Specifically, one would look for awards related to fish passage design, environmental engineering, civil engineering, or hydraulic design. Key metrics to examine would include the number and value of previous contracts, client agencies (e.g., Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, EPA), contract types (firm fixed-price, cost-plus), performance ratings, and any history of contract disputes or terminations. A strong history of successful project completion in related fields would indicate a lower performance risk for this current award. Conversely, a history of issues could raise concerns about the contractor's capability and reliability.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type impact value for money in this context?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type aims to provide cost certainty for the government. In theory, this means the total cost of the contract is known upfront, simplifying budget management. For the contractor, it shifts the risk of cost overruns to them. This can incentivize efficiency and careful planning. However, for complex, long-duration design projects like fish passage, where unforeseen technical challenges or regulatory changes are possible, an FFP contract might lead the contractor to build in a larger contingency into their price to mitigate their risk. This could result in a higher initial bid compared to other contract types like cost-plus, potentially impacting the immediate 'value for money' if the contingency is not fully utilized. Effective oversight is still crucial to ensure the contractor delivers the required quality within the fixed price.

What is the significance of the PSC code (if available) and NAICS code 541330 for this contract?

The provided data includes the NAICS code 541330, which stands for 'Engineering Services.' This classification is highly relevant as it broadly categorizes the primary business activity for which the contract was awarded. It indicates that the contract is for professional engineering services, encompassing activities like design, consulting, and analysis. The PSC (Product or Service Code) is not provided in the data, but typically, for engineering design services, it might fall under categories like 'Architect and Engineering Services' (e.g., C215). The NAICS code 541330 signifies that the procurement falls within a sector where numerous firms, ranging from large corporations to specialized small businesses, offer these types of services. It helps in benchmarking spending and understanding the competitive landscape within the federal engineering services market.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: ARCHITECT/ENGINEER SERVICES › ARCH-ENG SVCS - GENERAL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 225 IOWA AVE, MUSCATINE, IA, 52761

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $7,875,527

Exercised Options: $7,875,527

Current Obligation: $7,875,527

Actual Outlays: $1,750,215

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 3

Total Subaward Amount: $3,709,133

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912BV19D0023

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline