Despite the COVID-19 pandemic's impacts over the last year, Science Applications International Corp. reported double-digit revenue growth and only a slight dip in its net income.
For the company’s 2021 fiscal year ended Jan. 29, revenue was $7.1 billion compared to $6.4 billion in the prior 12-month period.
Most of that growth came through the acquisition of Unisys Federal in March 2020. But after taking out the acquired sales, organic revenue growth was less than 1 percent.
Organic growth would have been 4 percent without the impacts of COVID-19, CEO Nazzic Keene said Thursday in a call with investors.
The organic growth was driven by new business with the intelligence community and the U.S. Air Force. SAIC also saw growth within its existing programs, according to SAIC’s filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission.
Among the notable new awards was the $1.3 billion Army Corps of Engineers Revolutionary IT Services contract known as RITS. During a recent Project 38 podcast, SAIC's defense and civilian president Bob Genter said that win was attributed to the company’s acquisition of Unisys Federal.
With Unisys Federal in tow, SAIC strengthened its bid for RITS and won the contract to provide modern and secure enterprise-wide IT support for more than 37,000 users spread across 1,500 field and project offices around the world.
Net bookings for the full year were $11.9 billion to achieve a book-to-bill ratio of 1.7. The company estimates it has a backlog of $21.5 billion, of which $3 billion is funded.
Looking ahead, SAIC offered conservative guidance for revenue of $7.1 billion-to-$7.3 billion. What should be a positive for the company is that only 10 percent of its revenue is up for recompete during fiscal 2022.
This is below the typical average, said Prabu Natarajan, SAIC’s chief financial officer.
A large recompete that will happen during fiscal 2022 is the NASA Integrated Communications Services contract, which SAIC won in 2011. Also known as NICS, the ceiling value is $1.5 billion and NASA is evaluating all bids with an award expected in the summer.
SAIC's strategy going forward is to focus on longer-term needs for the government so the company is expanding its IT modernization focus into broader digital transformation, Keene said.
“We are building on our heritage and engineering by deepening our digital engineering capabilities, so that we can help the government advance complex systems integration, saving costs and increasing mission readiness,” Keene said. “We're also looking at the growing and evolving missions of our customers, especially in areas like space and health where there are new agencies, missions and requirements.”
Posted on Mar 26, 2021 at 11:03 AM0 comments
In its fight to keep an incumbent contract, DataPath argued that its past performance on the contract was not properly evaluated and the Army had treated both bidders unequally in the recompete.
Unfortunately for DataPath, the Government Accountability Office didn’t agree and denied the company’s protest.
Envistacom thus has wrestled away the $234.9 million contract to provide operations and support for several communication systems and networks.
DataPath has held the contract for several years and as described in the GAO decision the early years were rough. The Army ended up changing the scope of the incumbent contract. After that happened, DataPath’s performance improved.
In a statement sent to Washington Technology by DataPath’s attorney Lee Dougherty of Effectus PLLC, the company said it inherited a troubled contract and now leaves it “running flawlessly.”
DataPath stands by the challenges it lays out in the protest.
“DataPath as the incumbent was the most experienced company submitting an offer,” Dougherty said. In fact, it had higher ratings in some areas than Envistacom.
In the end, the two companies had nearly identical technical evaluations and prices that both rounded to $234.9 million. But Envistacom’s bid was slightly lower than DataPath’s, according to the GAO decision.
With the scores so close, DataPath’s earlier challenges on the program are what spelled its doom. The Army “identified a medium risk of poor performance given the firm’s inability to successfully perform the full scope of the incumbent effort,” GAO wrote.
GAO also didn’t find anything in the procurement record that indicated the companies were treated differently.
Despite the rejection, DataPath isn’t giving up on the customer even if it can’t continue on this contract. Dougherty said the company “looks forward to continuing to work tirelessly” to support the Army.
One message from this decision is that it reinforces the critical importance of past performance. DataPath is proud of the work it did. In its eyes, it rescued a troubled contract. But the Army saw a risk.
So you need to make sure that you see your past performance the same way your customer does.
Posted on Mar 26, 2021 at 11:32 AM0 comments
TekSynap Corp. will get another shot at a $180 million National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency contract now that the Government Accountability Office has ruled in the company's favor.
GAO sustained TekSynap’s protest and has recommended NGA both re-evaluate the company’s proposal and make a new award decision.
Chenega Agile Real-Time Solutions won the original contract to provide a suite of enterprise IT management services.
TekSynap argued the evaluation by NGA was not done properly.
While definitely a victory for TekSynap, this is a case of getting at least a second chance and not a full victory yet. NGA could still pick Chenega as their contractor, but then the agency would likely need to document and justify their decision in more detail to pass GAO’s scrutiny.
GAO's written decision has not been released yet. NGA and the companies are likely still haggling over what can be publicly released. That process can take anywhere from weeks to months. Another potential complicating factor is the classified nature of NGA’s work.
Posted on Mar 25, 2021 at 12:06 PM0 comments
CACI International’s argument that it was the rightful winner of an Army contract to support a massive relocation effort in South Korea fell on deaf ears at the Government Accountability Office.
GAO rejected CACI’s arguments that the Army improperly relaxed a deadline for bidders. One other ruling of GAO's was that CACI didn’t even have the right to protest.
The fight involves a $35.9 million Allliant 2 task order that went to Telos to support the Yongsan Relocation Program/Land Partnership plan. Yongsan is an effort to move U.S. troops and dependents from Seoul to a new area outside of the city. The relocation effects some 42,000 troops and dependents.
CACI filed its protest after Telos was picked as the winner. CACI argued that Telos missed a deadline to file an intention to bid.
But the Army said the contracting officer decided to let Telos and two other companies to file their notices about two weeks late, on June 3. He allowed the later submission because it would increase competition for the contract.
All bidders had to submit their proposals by July 10. The companies met that deadline.
CACI's argument was that because Telos missed the notice of intent to bid due date, it had violated the terms of the solicitation and should be eligible to bid.
But GAO ruled the relaxing of the intent deadline was within the Army’s discretion.
Even if GAO decided to knock Telos out of the competition, CACI would not be the next company eligible to win.
Telos, CACI and a third company known as "Offeror C" all had the same score of Good for their management and technical competency scores.
The award went to Telos because it had the lowest cost proposal at $35.9 million. Offeror C had the next-lowest at $37.96 million. CACI had the highest at $38.3 million.
GAO said that even it agreed with CACI’s argument that Telos was ineligible because of a missed deadline, CACI would not be the next company in line for the award, Offeror C would be.
CACI didn’t challenge the evaluation of Offeror C in its protest.
Because of all this, GAO dismissed CACI's protest on them not being an “interested party" -- a legal term that means CACI can’t protest because it wouldn’t have won the contract anyway.
Posted on Mar 25, 2021 at 1:07 PM0 comments
You have until Monday, March 29 to comment on the draft solicitation for the Defense Health Agency’s $1.4 billion Workforce 3.0 contract.
A new notice on Beta.Sam.gov provides an email to send your comments into and also directs you to the HIVE site that the Program Executive Office – Defense Healthcare Management Systems created to manage this another procurements.
Matthew Hudson, chief of contracting for PEO-DHMS, said on the HIVE that the final solicitation is very close to the finish line, but questions remain about the gates that companies will need to meet to win spots on the contract.
He said the gates are critical to the success of the procurement but that they also aren’t finished yet.
The gates listed below this sentence will not be designed to limit competition but to increase the likelihood of success, Hudson wrote.
- Gate 1: Disruptive outcomes
- Gate 2: Product prowess
- Gate 3: Talent experience
He is specifically looking for comments on the gates in the draft, but also added he doesn’t want comments focused on whether you can meet the gate or not.
“What we are hoping for is that if we’re wrong that our Gates will indicate that a team has the highest probability of success possible, feedback will show us why,” he wrote.
Hudson said a good gate has four attributes:
- Give confidence a team has the right attributes
- Is objective
- Is simple to propose
- Is simple to evaluate objectively and quickly.
PEO-DHMS has been working with Dcode to create what it hopes will be a “world class technology organization.” Workforce 3.0 is the first step in DHA's effort to develop a new approach to procurements that will draw new vendors and new solutions into the agency.
DHA needs to attract the right talent to do that, which is why Workforce 3.0 is the first of what will be several procurements.
Posted on Mar 24, 2021 at 1:17 PM0 comments
Almost three years after he sold ECS Federal for $775 million, Roy Kapani is back in the federal market with the acquisition of Systems Engineering Associates Corp., also known as SEACORP.
Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Kapani has taken on the role of chairman and CEO. Kapani replaces founder and now former owner Brian Gilligan, while the rest of the SEACORP management team led by President David Lussier remains in place.
Kapani said his committed to “maintaining the outstanding culture that their founder Brian Gilligan established and Dave Lussier and his team have nurtured for these past 40 years.”
Lussier said the acquisition by Kapani will “allow us to further build our brand, broaden our portfolio of capabilities and expand into new customers segments.”
Internal investments are planned as well as strategic acquisitions, Lussier said.
SEACORP primarily provides engineering services and technology to the United States. The company is the second largest contractor supporting the Naval Undersea Warfare Center in Newport, Rhode Island. The company is very active on the SeaPort-e vehicle and it employs more than 400 people.
According to USASpending.gov, the company had $30.6 million in contract obligations over the last 12 months. All of that is with the Defense Department, primarily the Navy.
Middletown, Rhode Island-based SEACORP lists its core capabilities as systems, software and hardware engineering, and test and evaluation services.
Houlihan Lokey served as a financial adviser to SEACORP with Duffy and Sweeney LLP acting as legal counsel. Kapani was advised by Skadden, Arps, Sltae, Meagher & Flom LLP and Piliero Mazza PLLC.
Posted on Mar 24, 2021 at 9:51 AM0 comments
I’ve made no secret of my disdain for Beta.Sam.Gov and how it went from a somewhat troubled but reliable government website in FBO.gov to an exercise in frustration.
But I’m also an optimist and know I’m not the only one who has been unhappy with Beta.Sam.
Now the General Services Administration is weeks away from unveiling a redesigned Beta.Sam as it moves ever closer to dropping the "Beta" and just going with Sam.gov. When that happens, GSA will have a consolidated portal to government procurement data and processes.
GSA has released information on what is included in what they are calling a “design refresh.” They have been holding focus groups and interviews with users to identify what is working and what isn’t with Beta.Sam. For the record, no one has asked for my thoughts.
The changes seem to focus on how search results are delivered and how filters are used.
I’m glad to read that the search results will be more compact and that you will have the choice to increase the results beyond the default of 10. You’ll have choices of 25, 50 or 100 results per page.
This should be a time saver because you won’t have to scroll and click through to other pages.
I’ll be curious if any of this will cure one of my pet peeves. When I use a saved search, it always opens on Page 4 of the search results instead of Page 1. I have to scroll to the bottom and then click on page 1 to begin looking at the most recent results.
For the new design, GSA has created landing pages for the different domains in Beta.Sam. Contracts opportunities is the domain I use almost exclusively. Other domains include contract data, wage determinations, federal hierarchy, and assistance listing.
If you want to focus on a particular domain, you can go to that domain to start your search.
The filter options also will be more compact and you’ll be able to use a calendar function to narrow the timeframe of a search.
These changes sound good but I worry. Are they just cosmetic? Will deeper functionality issues be addressed?
For example, I follow a bunch of contracts but going to my “Following” page remains pretty useless because the name of an individual contract isn’t visible. Just the solicitation number. Some of those I can decipher but not many.
So I have to click through and see what the contract is and what is new. I’d rather know the name upfront. That would save me time.
I also hope they are consolidating how the information about a particular opportunity is presented. I think there is too much white space. The information seems to be spread out too much. Information in areas such as General Information and Classification can be easily consolidated.
Reading through the information is more of a slog than it was in FBO, which had a cleaner more direct layout. I knew how to read the information there quickly and accurately. I feel like after all this time, I’m still learning to read Beta.Sam.
But I’ll withhold judgment for now on what this design refresh really means and will hope for the best.
Posted on Mar 23, 2021 at 6:22 AM0 comments
The General Services Administration has added four more companies to its OASIS professional services contract vehicle and at least two of them likely have bid protests to thank for the win.
ActionNet, Odyssey Systems Consulting, Research Triangle Institute and Triple Canopy are now on the unrestricted portion for Pool 1 of the $50 billion vehicle.
GSA in September of last year made 120 on-ramp awards for Pools 1, 3 and 4.
One month later, ActionNet and Triple Canopy filed protests with the Government Accountability Office when they failed to win spots on Pool 1. ActionNet’s protest was dismissed in November and Triple Canopy’s in December after GSA took a corrective action.
Odyssey also won spots in Pools 3 and 4. Research Triangle already has a spot in Pool 4. Triple Canopy is a subsidiary of Constellis.
Pool 1 is for the most traditional professional services. Pool 3 includes those services but is specialized in military applications. Pool 4 is for accounting and financial services.
Posted on Mar 22, 2021 at 11:41 AM0 comments
When your evaluated price is nearly $40 million higher than your competitor’s, that’s a tough hurdle to clear.
That hurdle becomes nearly impossible when the lower priced competitor has a proposal that was described as a “more beneficial approach."
ICF found itself in that situation when the Army picked Leidos for research-and-development work that supports cyber operations and safety functions.
Leidos’ evaluated price came out at $137.2 million and ICF’s was $175.6 million. Adding some salt to the wound is the fact that ICF was the incumbent contractor.
ICF filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office. In its decision, GAO sided with the Army and denied the protest.
ICF's objections were over key personnel, disparate technical evaluations, mistakes in how the realism of proposed costs was evaluated and how the Army decided what was best value as the solicitation required.
On the best value argument, ICF said the Army essentially treated the contract as a lowest-cost, technically acceptable evaluation. GAO instead said source selection officials have broad discretion. The Army also argued they followed the process described in the solicitation.
GAO's decision also explains how the Army wants to buy research-and-development servicesn then have a mechanism for transitioning the R&D to cyber operations. The Army found Leidos’ proposal was just slightly more beneficial.
When that finding was coupled with the lower price, the Army couldn’t justify ICF’s higher evaluated price, according to the decision.
GAO ruled against ICF on the other challenges as well. For example, ICF objected to the way its evaluated price was determined. But GAO said ICF didn’t sufficiently document some of the reasoning behind its pricing, particularly the escalation of pricing in the out years of the contract.
But GAO also said that it wouldn’t have made any difference because its price was still significantly higher.
On the risk ratings, ICF said that the two companies received the same overall score of “no worse than moderate.” As the incumbent, ICF basically said it should have received a better risk score based on its track record.
Because it didn’t get a better risk score, it couldn’t receive a higher technical score than Leidos. But GAO said there was no evidence that its risk score affected its technical score.
Putting the price difference aside, this protest should be a lesson to agencies. For every challenge that ICF issued in its protest, the Army had an answer and had documented each of its decisions. Or the Army could point to the solicitation and say that is why we did it this way.
Then add back in the price difference, and it would take a small miracle for ICF to win this protest.
In its conclusion, GAO talks about how the “record demonstrates” the basis for the Army decision and how the source selection authority cited “specific examples of unique attributes” in each proposal.
A documented award decision is hard for any protestor to overcome.
Posted on Mar 19, 2021 at 10:47 AM0 comments
CACI International is protesting the loss of an incumbent contract worth a potential $200 million to support the U.S. Cyber Command
Booz Allen Hamilton won the contract that was competed through the Defense Intelligence Agency’s Solutions for Intelligence Analysis III vehicle.
CACI and Booz Allen bid to provide intelligence services for Cybercom's directorate of intelligence.
The competition took place over a two-step process. In step one, Cybercom determined the highest-rated bidder. Then negotiations over price with that company would move forward. The agency has estimated the value of the work at $200 million but final price has not been set yet.
CACI filed its protest after getting knocked out in step one.
The company filed its protest March 10 and a decision from Government Accountability Office is expected June 18.
Posted on Mar 18, 2021 at 9:25 AM0 comments
CAE USA Mission Solutions is pushing back on the government's decision to award a $106.9 million Space Force training contract to a competitor.
The contract was awarded to Sigmatech through the Federal Supply Schedule vehicle to support the National Security Space Institute.
CAE is arguing that the bids were not properly evaluated. If they had been, CAE says they would have won.
The contract covers instructor services to the National Security Space Institute.
The institute is the U.S. Space Force’s organization for continuing education and as well as supporting education programs at the Air University, Naval Postgraduate School, and the Air Force Institute of Technology.
Courses offered there range from the basics -- Introduction to Space to higher level classes such as the Joint Space Planners Course.
Classes can take anywhere from a few hours to multiple weeks.
CAE filed its protest March 11 and a decision is expected by June 21.
Posted on Mar 17, 2021 at 11:52 AM0 comments