Navy awards $50.3M contract for EMALS logistics support to General Atomics, facing limited competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $50,327,299 ($50.3M)
Contractor: General Atomics
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2012-08-15
End Date: 2017-11-30
Contract Duration: 1,933 days
Daily Burn Rate: $26.0K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: TRAVEL REQUIRED FOR PERFORMANCE OF EMALS LOGISTICS SUPPORT
Place of Performance
Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92121
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $50.3 million to GENERAL ATOMICS for work described as: TRAVEL REQUIRED FOR PERFORMANCE OF EMALS LOGISTICS SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract value of $50.3 million for logistics support of EMALS. 2. Limited competition due to the specialized nature of the equipment. 3. Contract duration of 1933 days (over 5 years). 4. Performance location in California. 5. Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type indicates potential for cost overruns. 6. No small business set-aside noted.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $50.3 million for logistics support of the EMALS system appears substantial given the specialized nature of the technology. Benchmarking against similar complex defense systems is difficult without more granular data on the scope of services. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for development and complex services, carries inherent risks of cost escalation if not closely managed. The absence of a specific benchmark for per-unit cost makes a direct value-for-money assessment challenging.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
This contract was awarded on a limited competition basis, likely due to the highly specialized nature of the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) and the need for contractor expertise with this specific technology. The limited competition suggests that only a few entities possess the requisite knowledge and capabilities to perform the required logistics support. This can lead to less aggressive pricing compared to full and open competition.
Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition can result in higher costs for taxpayers as it reduces the pressure on contractors to offer the most competitive pricing. The government may not achieve the best possible value when fewer bidders are involved.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Navy's aviation programs that utilize the EMALS system. Services delivered include logistics support essential for the operational readiness of the EMALS. Geographic impact is concentrated in California, where the contractor is located and likely where support activities will be performed. Workforce implications include specialized technical roles for logistics and maintenance personnel.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type may lead to higher than anticipated costs.
- Limited competition restricts price discovery and potentially increases the overall cost to the government.
- Specialized nature of EMALS requires unique expertise, potentially limiting future competition.
- Long contract duration could mask inefficiencies if not actively managed.
Positive Signals
- Award to a known contractor, General Atomics, suggests a level of confidence in their capabilities.
- Logistics support is critical for maintaining the operational readiness of advanced naval aviation systems.
- Contract duration provides stability for planning and execution of support services.
Sector Analysis
The contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically supporting advanced aircraft launch systems. The market for such specialized components and support is typically dominated by a few key players due to high barriers to entry, including significant R&D investment and proprietary technology. Spending in this niche is driven by naval modernization programs and the deployment of new carrier technologies like EMALS.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside. Given the specialized nature of EMALS technology and the prime contractor, General Atomics, it is unlikely that significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would be mandated or readily available within the scope of this specific award. Further analysis of subcontracting plans would be needed to determine any indirect impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined by the contract terms, including performance metrics and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed operational oversight specifics are not publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Naval Aviation Programs
- Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment
- Defense Logistics Support Contracts
- Advanced Manufacturing Sector Contracts
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
- Limited competition may result in higher prices and reduced value for taxpayers.
- Specialized technology requires unique expertise, potentially limiting future competition and increasing sustainment costs.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, general-atomics, emals, logistics-support, limited-competition, cost-plus-fixed-fee, california, aircraft-parts, delivery-order
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $50.3 million to GENERAL ATOMICS. TRAVEL REQUIRED FOR PERFORMANCE OF EMALS LOGISTICS SUPPORT
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GENERAL ATOMICS.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $50.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2012-08-15. End: 2017-11-30.
What is the track record of General Atomics with EMALS logistics support?
General Atomics is a primary contractor for the EMALS system itself, indicating a deep understanding of the technology. Their track record with EMALS logistics support would be directly tied to their involvement in the development and initial fielding phases. Performance data from this specific contract (2012-2017) would be crucial for assessing their reliability, responsiveness, and effectiveness in providing the required logistics services. Historical performance on similar complex defense systems, while not directly EMALS, could also provide context for their ability to manage such contracts.
How does the $50.3 million contract value compare to similar logistics support contracts for advanced defense systems?
Direct comparison of the $50.3 million value is challenging without knowing the precise scope of 'logistics support' for EMALS and comparing it to contracts for similarly complex, specialized defense systems. However, for systems requiring highly technical expertise and long-term support, such as advanced aircraft components or missile systems, contract values in the tens of millions over several years are not uncommon. The key differentiator here is the unique nature of EMALS, which likely commands a premium due to limited contractor availability and the critical role it plays in naval aviation.
What are the primary risks associated with this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract?
The primary risk with a CPFF contract is cost overrun. While the 'fixed fee' provides the contractor with a defined profit margin, the 'cost plus' portion means the government reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred. If the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, the total contract price increases. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not fully defined or involves significant uncertainty, as is common in advanced technology development and support. Effective government oversight is crucial to manage and control these costs.
How effective has General Atomics been in delivering on the EMALS logistics support requirements based on available data?
Assessing the effectiveness of General Atomics' delivery on this specific contract requires access to performance reports, delivery metrics, and any quality assurance reviews conducted by the Department of the Navy during the 2012-2017 period. Publicly available data often lacks this granular detail. However, the fact that the Navy continued to engage with General Atomics for EMALS-related work suggests a baseline level of satisfaction or necessity. Without specific performance ratings or documented issues, a definitive statement on effectiveness is difficult.
What are the historical spending patterns for EMALS logistics support, and how does this contract fit in?
This $50.3 million contract represents a significant investment in the logistics support for the EMALS system during its initial operational and deployment phases (2012-2017). Historical spending patterns for EMALS logistics would likely show increasing investment as the system moved from development to full operational capability. This contract appears to be a key component of that lifecycle support strategy. Subsequent contracts would likely follow to address ongoing sustainment, upgrades, and potential expansion of EMALS to additional carriers.
What is the potential impact of limited competition on the long-term sustainment costs of EMALS?
Limited competition for specialized systems like EMALS can lead to higher long-term sustainment costs. When only one or a few contractors can provide the necessary support, they face less pressure to innovate or reduce prices. This can result in higher labor rates, parts costs, and service fees over the system's lifespan. The Navy may need to explore strategies such as incentivizing competition through future contract designs, developing in-house capabilities, or fostering alternative support providers to mitigate these long-term cost increases.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT LAUNCHING, LANDING, GROUND HANDLING AND SERVICING EQUIPMENT
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT, SAN DIEGO, CA, 92121
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $50,373,969
Exercised Options: $50,373,969
Current Obligation: $50,327,299
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: N6833511G0003
IDV Type: BOA
Timeline
Start Date: 2012-08-15
Current End Date: 2017-11-30
Potential End Date: 2017-11-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2017-05-31
More Contracts from General Atomics
- CVN 79 Emals Long Lead Time Material — $1.7B (Department of Defense)
- 200310!000495!1700!A8050 !naval AIR Warfare Center, Aircra!n6833503c0205 !A!N! !N! !20030728!20041028!067638957!067638957!859181984!n!general Atomics !3550 General Atomics Court!san Diego !ca!92121!66000!073!06!san Diego !SAN Diego !california!+000004883000!n!n!000107026822!1710!aircraft Landing Equipment !c9e!all Other Supplies and Equipme!2000!not Discernable or Classified !336413!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!y!u!2!002!b! !A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $928.2M (Department of Defense)
- CVN 78 Production Emals — $710.8M (Department of Defense)
- 200411!001061!1700!A8050 !naval AIR Warfare Center, Aircra!n6833504c0167 !A!N! !N! ! !20040402!20090403!067638957!067638957!859181984!n!general Atomics !3550 General Atomics Court!san Diego !ca!92121!37800!029!34!lakehurst AIR Engine!ocean !NEW Jersey!+000016000000!n!n!000145621824!1710!aircraft Landing Equipment !a1c!other Aircraft Equipment !223 !cvn(x) !541710!A!A!3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1g!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !z!b!a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $590.2M (Department of Defense)
- CVN 81 Emals Pre-Production Planning — $511.0M (Department of Defense)
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)