DoD's $177M Valiant Global Defense Services contract for Army National Guard mission training shows fair value, but limited competition raises concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $177,083,807 ($177.1M)

Contractor: Valiant Global Defense Services Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-08-27

End Date: 2022-02-21

Contract Duration: 1,274 days

Daily Burn Rate: $139.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: THIS TASK ORDER PROVIDES MISSION TRAINING (OPERATORS AND INSTRUCTORS) FOR THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD BOTH CONUS AND OCONUS AT MISSION TRAINING COMMANDS.

Place of Performance

Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92123

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $177.1 million to VALIANT GLOBAL DEFENSE SERVICES INC. for work described as: THIS TASK ORDER PROVIDES MISSION TRAINING (OPERATORS AND INSTRUCTORS) FOR THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD BOTH CONUS AND OCONUS AT MISSION TRAINING COMMANDS. Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable given the extensive training services provided to the Army National Guard. 2. Competition was limited to a single awardee, raising questions about potential price overruns and reduced innovation. 3. The contract duration and scope suggest a significant, ongoing need for specialized training capabilities. 4. Performance context is critical, as the effectiveness of training directly impacts soldier readiness. 5. This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, supporting critical defense readiness functions. 6. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further examination of subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of approximately $177 million over nearly four years for mission training services is substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale training contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the cost-plus-no-fee (CPNF) contract type suggests that the government aims to control costs while ensuring the contractor is reimbursed for expenses. The value proposition hinges on the quality and effectiveness of the training delivered, which is not directly quantifiable from the award data alone. Further analysis would require comparing the per-service cost or the cost per trainee to industry standards.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited. However, the data shows only one awardee, Valiant Global Defense Services Inc., which could imply that only one bidder met the requirements or was the most advantageous. The level of competition, while initiated broadly, resulted in a single award, which can sometimes lead to less aggressive pricing than if multiple strong competitors were vying for the contract. It is important to understand if other bids were received and why they were not selected.

Taxpayer Impact: While initiated as full and open, the single award means taxpayers may not have benefited from the full competitive pressure that could drive down costs. The government secured a provider, but the potential for cost savings through robust competition might have been missed.

Public Impact

The Army National Guard benefits directly through enhanced mission readiness and improved operator/instructor capabilities. Services delivered include comprehensive mission training, crucial for preparing soldiers for diverse operational environments. The geographic impact is both CONUS (Continental United States) and OCONUS (Outside Continental United States), supporting global deployments. Workforce implications include the training of both operators and instructors, building internal capacity within the Guard. This contract supports the readiness and effectiveness of a significant component of the U.S. Army's reserve forces.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition resulting in a single award could potentially lead to higher costs than a more competitive scenario.
The cost-plus-no-fee contract type requires careful monitoring to ensure contractor efficiency and prevent cost overruns.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the true value for money.
The absence of small business participation raises questions about broader economic impact and subcontracting opportunities.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a structured procurement process.
The contract addresses a critical need for mission training, directly supporting national defense objectives.
Valiant Global Defense Services Inc. is the sole awardee, indicating they likely possess specialized capabilities required for this mission.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the Engineering Services (NAICS 541330) sector, which is a significant part of the defense industrial base. This sector provides a wide range of technical and engineering support to government agencies, particularly the Department of Defense. The market for defense training services is substantial, driven by the continuous need for military readiness and modernization. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale training and simulation contracts awarded by the DoD, considering factors like service scope, duration, and trainee numbers.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary solicitation was open to all responsible sources, and small businesses were not specifically targeted for this particular award. Consequently, there may be limited direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless the prime contractor voluntarily includes them. This approach might overlook the potential for innovative solutions and cost efficiencies that small businesses often bring to specialized service contracts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army and potentially the Department of Defense's Inspector General. The contract type (Cost Plus No Fee) necessitates robust financial oversight to ensure that costs are reasonable and allowable. Performance monitoring would likely involve regular reviews of training delivery, trainee feedback, and mission readiness improvements. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports and audits are typically internal or classified.

Related Government Programs

Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) programs
National Guard Bureau training initiatives
Department of Defense simulation and training contracts
Combat Training Center (CTC) support services

Risk Flags

Single awardee for critical service
Cost-plus contract type requires diligent oversight
Lack of specified performance metrics
No small business participation noted

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $177.1 million to VALIANT GLOBAL DEFENSE SERVICES INC.. THIS TASK ORDER PROVIDES MISSION TRAINING (OPERATORS AND INSTRUCTORS) FOR THE ARMY NATIONAL GUARD BOTH CONUS AND OCONUS AT MISSION TRAINING COMMANDS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VALIANT GLOBAL DEFENSE SERVICES 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 $177.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-08-27. End: 2022-02-21.

What is Valiant Global Defense Services Inc.'s track record with similar DoD training contracts?

Valiant Global Defense Services Inc. has a history of securing contracts with the Department of Defense, often related to training, logistics, and technical support services. While specific details on past performance for mission training of this scale are not provided in the award data, their ability to win this significant contract suggests they have demonstrated relevant capabilities and experience. A deeper dive into their contract history, including past performance reviews and any reported issues on previous DoD engagements, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and expertise in delivering complex training solutions. Examining their financial stability and any past litigation or disputes would also be prudent.

How does the cost of this training compare to similar mission training programs for other military branches or components?

Direct cost comparison is difficult without detailed service breakdowns and trainee numbers for comparable contracts. However, the total award of approximately $177 million over roughly 3.5 years for mission training implies a significant investment per year. The cost-plus-no-fee structure means the government reimburses allowable costs plus a fixed fee, aiming for cost control. To benchmark effectively, one would need to analyze the cost per training hour, cost per trainee, or cost per simulated mission event across different branches and contract types. Factors like geographic location (CONUS vs. OCONUS), complexity of training scenarios, and required instructor-to-trainee ratios heavily influence costs, making direct comparisons challenging but essential for assessing value.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this training contract?

The provided award data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for mission training contracts, KPIs would focus on aspects such as trainee proficiency levels achieved, instructor effectiveness ratings, simulation fidelity, adherence to training schedules, and ultimately, the impact on unit readiness as assessed through exercises or operational performance. The effectiveness of the training is paramount, as it directly influences the operational capabilities of the Army National Guard. Without explicit KPIs, assessing the contractor's performance and the overall value derived from the $177 million investment is challenging.

What is the historical spending trend for Army National Guard mission training over the past five years?

Analyzing historical spending trends for Army National Guard mission training requires access to comprehensive federal procurement databases beyond the single award data provided. However, it is reasonable to infer that spending in this area is likely consistent or increasing, given the ongoing need for military readiness and the evolving nature of global threats. The $177 million awarded to Valiant Global Defense Services Inc. represents a significant portion of this spending for the contract period. Understanding the broader trend would involve examining total obligated amounts for similar training contracts awarded to various entities over multiple fiscal years to identify patterns, fluctuations, and potential shifts in procurement strategies.

What are the potential risks associated with a single awardee for such a critical training function?

A single awardee for a critical function like mission training presents several risks. Firstly, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes heavily reliant on one provider, potentially reducing leverage in future negotiations. Secondly, without ongoing competition, there's less incentive for the contractor to innovate or aggressively control costs, potentially leading to price creep over time. Thirdly, if the contractor experiences performance issues, financial instability, or faces unforeseen challenges, there are limited immediate alternatives, potentially disrupting essential training operations. Finally, the lack of competitive pressure might mean taxpayers are not receiving the best possible value for the funds expended.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W900KK17R0001

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Valiant Integrated Services LLC

Address: 2355 DULLES CORNER BLVD STE 200, HERNDON, VA, 20171

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $246,002,623

Exercised Options: $213,561,423

Current Obligation: $177,083,807

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W900KK18D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline