Teledyne Brown Engineering awarded $70M for custom computer programming services by the Missile Defense Agency
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $69,980,704 ($70.0M)
Contractor: Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2011-09-01
End Date: 2015-09-30
Contract Duration: 1,490 days
Daily Burn Rate: $47.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: IT
Official Description: OSF DEVELOPMENT
Place of Performance
Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35805
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $70.0 million to TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING, INC. for work described as: OSF DEVELOPMENT Key points: 1. The contract value of $70M for custom computer programming services appears to be within a reasonable range for the scope of work, though specific benchmarks are needed for definitive value assessment. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting a robust market response and potential for competitive pricing. 3. The contract type (Cost Plus Incentive Fee) introduces performance-based incentives but also carries inherent cost-reimbursement risks. 4. The duration of 1490 days indicates a significant, long-term engagement for the contractor. 5. The Missile Defense Agency's reliance on this contract highlights its importance in supporting critical defense systems. 6. The absence of small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements may limit opportunities for smaller firms in this specific award.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of approximately $70 million over roughly four years for custom computer programming services requires careful benchmarking against similar IT service contracts within the Department of Defense. While the total award amount is substantial, the per-year expenditure is moderate. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type suggests that the government aims to incentivize contractor performance and cost control, which can be a good value driver if managed effectively. However, CPIF contracts can also lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored, impacting the overall value proposition.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but this procurement method generally fosters a competitive environment, which should theoretically lead to better price discovery and a more favorable outcome for the government. The agency's decision to use full and open competition suggests confidence in the market's ability to provide qualified vendors for these specialized services.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive bids and potentially lowering the overall cost to the government.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of Defense and specifically the Missile Defense Agency, which will receive critical custom computer programming services. The services delivered are essential for the development, integration, and maintenance of advanced missile defense systems, contributing to national security. The geographic impact is primarily within Alabama, where Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. is located, potentially creating or sustaining high-skilled jobs in the region. The contract supports a workforce of highly skilled software engineers, programmers, and technical specialists.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not meticulously managed and monitored.
- The lack of specific performance metrics or clear incentive targets within the provided data makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the incentive component.
- The duration of the contract (nearly 4 years) increases the risk of scope creep or evolving technological requirements not being adequately addressed without formal modifications.
- The absence of small business participation goals or set-asides means potential missed opportunities for economic development and broader contractor engagement.
Positive Signals
- The use of full and open competition suggests a healthy market and potential for competitive pricing, which is a positive signal for value.
- The Missile Defense Agency's selection of a specific contractor implies a level of trust and perceived capability based on prior performance or proposal evaluation.
- The contract's focus on custom computer programming for a critical defense system indicates a commitment to maintaining and advancing national security capabilities.
- The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure, if well-defined and managed, can align contractor and government interests towards achieving specific performance goals efficiently.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) and Defense sectors, specifically focusing on custom computer programming services. The market for such services is large and highly competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized software development and integration. Within the defense sector, spending on IT and specialized engineering services is substantial, driven by the need for advanced technological capabilities in areas like missile defense. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale software development contracts awarded by agencies like the DoD, NASA, or other intelligence community components.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have been awarded as a small business set-aside, nor is there information indicating specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., was selected without explicit mandates for small business participation on this particular award. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract may be limited, unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program management office within the Missile Defense Agency. Performance monitoring, financial reviews, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure necessitates close scrutiny of incurred costs and performance against established targets. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting requirements, though specific public access to detailed performance data may be limited due to the sensitive nature of defense contracts.
Related Government Programs
- Missile Defense Systems
- Ballistic Missile Defense Program
- Advanced Technology Development Contracts
- Department of Defense IT Services
- Custom Software Development Contracts
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract type carries inherent cost risk.
- Lack of specific performance metrics makes incentive effectiveness difficult to gauge.
- No explicit small business subcontracting requirements noted.
- Duration of contract increases potential for scope changes.
Tags
it, defense, missile-defense-agency, department-of-defense, custom-computer-programming, cost-plus-incentive-fee, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, alabama, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $70.0 million to TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING, INC.. OSF DEVELOPMENT
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Missile Defense Agency).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $70.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2011-09-01. End: 2015-09-30.
What is Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.'s track record with the Department of Defense, particularly on missile defense-related contracts?
Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. has a significant history of supporting the Department of Defense and various defense programs, including those related to missile defense. Their involvement often spans engineering, integration, and technical services. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts, including any reported issues, successes, or contract modifications, would provide crucial context for assessing their capability and reliability in executing this current $70 million award. A review of their contract history, including award types, past performance evaluations (if publicly available), and any disputes or terminations, would be necessary for a comprehensive understanding of their track record.
How does the $70 million contract value compare to similar custom computer programming services contracts awarded by the Missile Defense Agency or other DoD components?
Benchmarking the $70 million contract value requires comparing it against the average and median award values for custom computer programming services (NAICS code 541511) procured by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) and other Department of Defense (DoD) entities over a relevant period (e.g., the last 3-5 years). Factors such as contract duration, scope of work complexity, and required security clearances significantly influence pricing. If this $70 million award falls within the typical range for similar long-term, complex programming efforts supporting critical defense systems, it suggests reasonable value. Conversely, if it appears significantly higher or lower than comparable awards, it warrants further investigation into the specific requirements and market conditions.
What are the specific performance metrics and incentive targets associated with the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure for this contract?
The effectiveness and value derived from a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract are heavily dependent on the clarity and attainability of its performance metrics and incentive targets. For this $70 million contract, understanding these specific metrics—which could relate to technical performance, schedule adherence, cost savings, or quality standards—is crucial. The incentive structure should clearly define how deviations from target costs or performance levels will impact the final fee paid to Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. Without this detailed information, it is difficult to assess whether the CPIF arrangement is effectively aligning the contractor's efforts with the government's objectives and ensuring optimal value for taxpayer dollars.
What is the historical spending pattern for custom computer programming services by the Missile Defense Agency, and how does this award fit into that trend?
Examining the historical spending patterns of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on custom computer programming services (NAICS 541511) provides context for the significance of this $70 million award. Analyzing trends over the past several years would reveal whether MDA's spending in this category has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable. Understanding this trend helps determine if this award represents a typical level of investment or a notable shift. It also allows for comparison against overall MDA budgets and priorities, indicating how critical these programming services are perceived to be within the agency's strategic objectives and resource allocation.
Are there any identified risks associated with Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.'s performance or the nature of the custom computer programming services required for this contract?
Assessing risks for this contract involves considering both contractor-specific factors and the inherent challenges of custom computer programming for defense systems. Potential risks related to Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. could include past performance issues, financial stability concerns, or technical capability gaps, although these are not detailed in the provided data. Risks inherent to the project itself might include evolving technological requirements, integration challenges with existing systems, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, potential for scope creep, and the complexity of ensuring reliability and security in mission-critical software. The CPIF contract type also introduces a risk of cost overruns if incentives are not structured effectively or if oversight is insufficient.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Custom Computer Programming Services
Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: HQ014710R0018
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Teledyne Technologies Incorporated (UEI: 112358432)
Address: 300 SPARKMAN DR NW, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35805
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $70,798,769
Exercised Options: $70,798,769
Current Obligation: $69,980,704
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 153
Total Subaward Amount: $15,822,186
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: HQ014711D0015
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2011-09-01
Current End Date: 2015-09-30
Potential End Date: 2015-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-04-28
More Contracts from Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.
- Systems Development&operations Support a Primary Mission of the Marshall Space Flight Center (msfc) IS to Support Nasa's Human Exploration and Development of Space (heds) Enterprise and the Office of Biological and Physical Research (obpr) Enterprise WHO ARE Working Together to Facilitate Long-Term Exploration of Space. Msfc Serves AS Nasa's Lead Center for the Materials Science and Biotechnology Disciplines and Serves Other Customers and Sponsors Within the Agency. the Purposes of This Contract ARE to Further the Science Goals of the Agency by 1) Developing, Operating and Maintaining Facilities and Payloads on the International Space Station (ISS) and Other Vehicles and Carriers, 2) Providing Science, Technical and Engineering Support to Investigators, and 3) Providing Management and Administrative Support to Msad. the Contractor Shall Provide the Necessary Management, Personnel, and Equipment/Supplies (NOT Otherwise Provided by the Government) Required to Perform the Engineering, Science and Technical Tasks Broadly Defined in This Statement of Work (SOW) and More Specifically Described in the Task/Delivery Order (order) and Technical Directives Issued by the Government. the Contractor Shall Provide the Planning, Coordination, Technical Direction, and Surveillance of the Activities Necessary to Assure Disciplined Performance of Work and Timely Application of Resources for the Accomplishment of ALL Orders Issued Under the Contract Approved by Msad. the Contractor Shall Establish, Implement, and Maintain a Financial Reporting System in Accordance With the Nasa FAR Supplement (NFS) 1852.242-73 and Nasa Procedures and Guidelines (NPG) 9501.2D. the Contractor Shall Provide the Overall Management Effort Required to Integrate Technical and Programmatic Functions Necessary for Achievement of the Objectives of the Contract. the Contractor Shall Develop, Submit, and Maintain Detailed Master Schedules Based on a Logic Driven Network That Supports Applicable Msad Project and ISS Program Managed Milestones. the Contractor Shall BE Responsible for Procurement Functions: the Contractor Shall Create, Maintain and Submit in the Format Specified by Msad, Miscellaneous Graphics, Presentations and Reports Supporting the Payloads and the Research Program, and the Major Msad Program Activities and Milestones. the Contractor Shall Define, Design, Develop, Fabricate, Assemble, Test, Deliver, Integrate and Operate Microgravity Science Payloads and Facilities. the Contractor Shall Define the Resources, Structure, Approach, and Processes Required to Complete the Final Design, Development, Fabrication, Assembly, Test, Integration, Operation, Maintenance, Support, and Retirement of the Required Hardware, Software, and Associated Infrastructure. the Contractor Shall Support or Conduct Technical Reviews Appropriate for Individual Payload Development and to Meet the Requirements of the Order — $397.2M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Mission Operations and Integration (MO&I) Contract. This Contract Involves Operations Support for ALL Phases of Flight Including Mission Preparation, Crew and Flight Controller Training, and Real-Time Operations Requirements for Spaceflight Operations Support. the Core Services Portion of the Contract Establishes Requirements for Payload Operations in Support of the International Space Station (ISS) Program, While Task Orders Issued Under the Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (idiq) Component Will Provide the Capability to ADD Operations Support for Other Program or Project Requirements — $371.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Marshall Operations Systems, Services, and Integration II (mossi II) — $253.6M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Production of FMS Boats U1, U2, and U3 — $237.7M (Department of Defense)
- Launch Vehicle/Stages Adapter — $205.5M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
View all Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)