When you must win.

Service Centric PTW

  1. Home
  3. Price to Win
  5. Service Centric PTW

ARDAK defines Service Centric Opportunities as those that involve very little or no material, no custom solution or platform development, and are predominately labor based. In some cases the USG will provide the staffing profile, labor categories, and estimated man hours and in other cases the contractor will have to develop the Basis of Estimate (BOE’s) and associated staffing profile. In either case ARDAK leverages the appropriate components within our IP so that our clients will have full visibility into each element of the cost buildup. Consequently not only do ARDAK’s clients have an opportunity to review each detailed component of the cost build up, but provide input at the cost element level, and if required ARDAK can quickly modify the data element, run it through our cost models, and provide our clients with the associated delta to the overall PTW within 24-48 hours.

Rate To Win (RTW)

Initially ARDAK will develop individual Wrap Rates for each competitor prime and subcontractor, develop the BOE’s, perform Labor Category Analysis, and then apply the Fee. ALL components of the aforementioned IP will then be used as input into ARDAK’s Service Centric Cost Models.

Service Centric Cost Models

ARDAK has developed numerous service centric cost models by leveraging individual components within our IP.

ARDAK derived the team wrap rate multiple (multiple of G&A, overhead, and fringe, without regard to fee or material handling costs) for both plant and site work for each competitor team identified.

1. Lockheed Martin Information Systems and Global Services, Cherry Hills, NJ

1.1. Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Belmar, NJ

1.2. Lockheed Martin Services, Cherry Hill, NJ

1.3. Lockheed Martin Information Technology, Sytex Group, Doylestown, PA

1.4. L-3 Communications, Titan Group, Reston, VA

1.5. L-3 Communications Ilex Systems, Systems Engineering Services Div., Shrewsbury, NJ

1.6. EPS, Services Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Tinton Falls, NJ

2. DRS Technical Services, Vienna, VA

2.1. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Taunton Operations, Taunton, MA

2.2. Harris Government Communications Systems Division (GCSD), Melbourne, FL

2.3. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems (IDS), Tewksbury, MA

2.4. SAIC Federal Business, McLean, VA

2.5. Rockwell Collins Government Systems, Communications Systems, Cedar Rapids, IA

ARDAK recommends developing one, composite Wrap Rate for the Small Business Subcontractors instead of individual Wrap Rates. This recommendation decreases delivery time and cost. The deliverable for this task will be a consolidated Wrap Rate report integrated into the summary briefing.

The following rationale was used to define the team wrap rates in the exemplar provided on the subsequent pages.

For the Lockheed Martin Team:

  1. As the prime, most of the onsite (plant) work will be performed at the LMC IS&GS facility in Cherry Hills NJ.
  2. Due to their relatively high cost and specific expertise, LMC IS will be used sparingly. The work performed by LMC IS will be equally distributed between their plant and “off-site”, be that either at the government’s facility or at LMC IS&GS’ facility.
  3. Because of their low cost, LMC Services will be used in a “Staff Augmentation” role, with a disproportionate number of their personnel working “off-site”, be that either at the government’s facility or at LMC IS&GS’ facility.
  4. As the primary sub-contractor, L-3 Titan will perform work both at their plant and “off-site”. Their relatively low rates will not offset their status as a sub-contractor to LMC.
  5. Due to their specific expertise, L-3 Ilex Systems will be used to perform a small amount of work both at their plant and “off-site”.
  6. As the SDB, EPS will be required to work at both LMC’s and L-3’s facility and bid “off-site” rates.

For the DRS Team:

  1. As the prime, most of the onsite (plant) work will be performed at the DRS facility in Vienna VA.
  2. Due to the requirements for specific equipment associated with GDC4S’ (Taunton), anticipated work load, their portion of the subcontract will be evenly split between their plant and “off-site” efforts.
  3. Due to the requirements for specific equipment associated with Harris GCSD’s, anticipated work load, their portion of the subcontract will be evenly split between their plant and “off-site” efforts.
  4. Due to the requirements for specific equipment associated with Raytheon IDS’, anticipated work load, their portion of the subcontract will be evenly split between their plant and “off-site” efforts.
  5. Typically SAIC maintains only a token facility when compared to their overall work force. Consequently, SAIC’s primary work share will be off-site”.
  6. Due to the requirements for specific equipment associated with Rockwell Collins’, anticipated work load, their portion of the subcontract will be evenly split between their plant and “off-site” efforts.
  7. It is anticipated that the SDB contractor will be required to work at DRS’ facility and bid “off-site” rates. However, it is highly likely that the SDB will not have sufficient accounting procedures in place to adequately define both plant and site rates, so they will bid a composite rate.

The following table summarizes the results of the Team Wrap Rate Derivation Analysis.

The example below represents a standard “Rate Card Shootout” where the average labor rate is used as a significant component of the evaluation criteria.

Rate Card Shootout 1
Rate Card Shootout 2