Army's $17.3M Financial Improvement Program Support Services contract awarded to Guidehouse Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,287,830 ($17.3M)

Contractor: Guidehouse Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-04-08

End Date: 2026-01-15

Contract Duration: 282 days

Daily Burn Rate: $61.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ARMY FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20310

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.3 million to GUIDEHOUSE INC. for work described as: ARMY FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract aims to enhance financial management and accountability within the Department of the Army. 2. The award is a delivery order under a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, suggesting potential for future task orders. 3. Pricing appears to be firm-fixed-price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. The contract duration of approximately 9 months (282 days) indicates a focused scope of work. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541219 points to specialized accounting services. 6. The contract is not set aside for small businesses, indicating a focus on larger, established firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $17.3 million for approximately 9 months of support for financial improvement programs is within a reasonable range for specialized government consulting services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for financial improvement and accounting support services within the Department of Defense suggests that the pricing is competitive. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, although it may command a premium compared to cost-plus contracts. Without detailed task-level data, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the competitive award process provides a positive signal.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a robust competitive process. This level of competition is generally favorable for price discovery and ensures that the government receives offers from a wide range of potential contractors, leading to potentially better pricing and service offerings.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically results in more favorable pricing for taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment where contractors strive to offer their best value proposals to win the contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its financial management personnel, who will receive expert support. Services delivered are expected to improve financial reporting accuracy, audit readiness, and overall financial management processes. The contract's geographic impact is primarily within the District of Columbia, where the contractor will likely be based or operate from. Workforce implications include the potential for specialized accounting and financial consulting professionals to be engaged in supporting the Army's financial improvement initiatives.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if the financial improvement challenges are more extensive than initially defined.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical financial improvement support could pose a risk if performance issues arise.
The relatively short duration may limit the depth of long-term systemic improvements achievable.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing and selection process.
Firm-fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty and shifts risk to the contractor.
Contractor, Guidehouse Inc., is a known entity in government consulting, implying potential for experienced personnel.
Focus on financial improvement aligns with government-wide mandates for better financial accountability.

Sector Analysis

The accounting and financial consulting services sector is a significant part of the professional services market supporting government operations. This contract falls within the broader professional services category, specifically focusing on specialized accounting and financial management support. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous firms offering expertise in areas like audit readiness, financial system modernization, and compliance. Government spending in this area is often driven by regulatory requirements, audit findings, and the need for improved efficiency and accountability in financial operations.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of mandatory subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee, Guidehouse Inc., is likely a large business, and the contract is not intended to directly promote small business participation through set-asides. However, large prime contractors often utilize small businesses for subcontracting opportunities, so there may be indirect benefits to the small business ecosystem depending on Guidehouse's subcontracting strategy.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program managers within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring will be crucial to ensure that the contractor meets the objectives of the financial improvement program. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction may apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

DoD Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) initiatives
Army Financial Management Systems
Government Accounting and Auditing Services
Professional Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for performance issues if contractor expertise is misaligned with specific Army financial challenges.
Risk of delays in achieving audit readiness or financial improvement goals due to inherent complexity.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical support functions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.3 million to GUIDEHOUSE INC.. ARMY FINANCIAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUPPORT SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GUIDEHOUSE 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 $17.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-04-08. End: 2026-01-15.

What is Guidehouse Inc.'s track record with similar financial improvement contracts for the Department of Defense?

Guidehouse Inc. has a significant track record supporting federal agencies, including the Department of Defense, with financial management, audit, and transformation services. They have been involved in various financial improvement initiatives, often focusing on audit readiness, financial reporting, and system modernization. Their experience typically includes working with complex financial systems and navigating regulatory requirements specific to defense agencies. While specific contract details for 'Financial Improvement Program Support Services' are not publicly detailed for every engagement, their broader portfolio suggests a strong capability in this domain. Assessing their past performance on similar contracts would involve reviewing contract performance reports (CPARS) if publicly available, and examining their success in meeting objectives related to audit remediation, financial statement accuracy, and process improvements on prior engagements.

How does the awarded value of $17.3 million compare to similar financial improvement support contracts within the DoD?

The awarded value of $17.3 million for approximately 9 months of support for the Army's Financial Improvement Program is within a typical range for specialized consulting services in this domain. Contracts for financial improvement, audit readiness, and financial system modernization within the DoD can vary significantly based on scope, duration, and complexity. Larger, multi-year efforts focused on enterprise-wide system overhauls or comprehensive audit remediation can reach hundreds of millions of dollars. However, task orders or specific program support contracts of this magnitude are common for targeted initiatives. Benchmarking against similar contracts requires detailed analysis of the specific services rendered, the number of personnel involved, and the duration. Generally, a firm-fixed-price contract of this value for specialized expertise suggests a focused scope and competitive pricing, assuming the contractor can deliver effectively within the budget.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Primary risks associated with this contract include potential performance issues if the contractor's expertise does not fully align with the Army's specific financial improvement challenges, and the risk of cost overruns if the scope is not well-defined, although the firm-fixed-price structure mitigates this for the government. Another risk is the potential for delays in achieving financial improvement goals due to the complexity of DoD financial systems and processes. Mitigation strategies likely include robust contract oversight by the Army, clear performance metrics and deliverables outlined in the contract, and regular progress reviews. The selection of Guidehouse Inc., a firm with demonstrated experience in government financial consulting, also serves as a risk mitigation factor, suggesting a higher likelihood of successful performance. The relatively short duration may also limit the risk of long-term entanglement if performance is unsatisfactory.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for this specific service?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for ensuring value for money when the scope of work is well-defined and the requirements are not expected to change significantly. For financial improvement program support services, FFP shifts the cost risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage their resources efficiently and deliver the agreed-upon services within the fixed price. This provides cost certainty for the government. Value for money is realized if the contractor successfully meets all performance requirements within the fixed price. However, if unforeseen complexities arise that require scope adjustments, the FFP structure can make modifications more challenging or costly. The effectiveness hinges on the initial clarity of the SOW and the contractor's ability to execute efficiently.

What are the historical spending patterns for financial improvement support services within the Department of the Army?

Historical spending patterns for financial improvement support services within the Department of the Army have shown a consistent and significant investment over the past decade. This spending is largely driven by legislative mandates, such as the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act and the National Defense Authorization Acts, which require federal agencies to achieve auditable financial statements. The Army, like other large DoD components, has faced persistent challenges with audit readiness and financial system integration, necessitating ongoing support from external contractors. Spending has typically been allocated across various contract vehicles, including IDIQs, task orders, and direct contracts, for services ranging from audit remediation and financial reporting to system implementation and process re-engineering. The total annual spending can fluctuate based on specific audit cycles, system upgrade priorities, and the availability of appropriated funds, but it generally represents a substantial portion of the Army's professional services budget.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Accounting, Tax Preparation, Bookkeeping, and Payroll Services › Other Accounting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W91CRB21R0049

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Peraton Technology Services Inc.

Address: 1676 INTERNATIONAL DR STE 800, MC LEAN, VA, 22102

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $17,287,830

Exercised Options: $17,287,830

Current Obligation: $17,287,830

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91CRB25D0014

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline