DoD's $99.6M contract for a scalable OSF framework to support missile defense simulations

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $99,649,771 ($99.6M)

Contractor: Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-10-01

End Date: 2019-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $68.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEVELOP A SINGLE INCLUSIVE, MODULAR SCALABLE, RECONFIGURABLE, AND COMPOSABLE OSF FRAMEWORK TO MERGE SYSTEM LEVEL M&S. THE OSF FRAMEWORK SHALL BE DESIGNED TO BE MULTIPLE-INSTANCED WITH EACH INSTANCE CAPABLE OF BEING COMPOSED AND EXECUTED INDEPENDENTLY. THE OSF SHALL BE DESIGNED AND DEVELOPED TO SUPPORT BMDS M&S USE CASES INCLUDING GROUND TEST, PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT, WAR GAMES, EXERCISES AND TRAINING EVENTS.

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35805

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $99.6 million to TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEVELOP A SINGLE INCLUSIVE, MODULAR SCALABLE, RECONFIGURABLE, AND COMPOSABLE OSF FRAMEWORK TO MERGE SYSTEM LEVEL M&S. THE OSF FRAMEWORK SHALL BE DESIGNED TO BE MULTIPLE-INSTANCED WITH EACH INSTANCE CAPABLE OF BEING COMPOSED AND EXECUTED INDEPENDE… Key points: 1. The contract aims to create a unified, modular, and scalable framework for missile defense system modeling and simulation (M&S). 2. This framework is intended to support various critical functions including ground testing, performance assessment, war games, exercises, and training events. 3. The chosen approach emphasizes reconfigurability and composability, allowing for independent execution of different instances of the OSF. 4. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 5. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type indicates that costs are reimbursed, plus a fixed fee for profit. 6. The contract duration of 1460 days (4 years) suggests a significant, long-term development effort. 7. The contractor, Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc., is tasked with a complex software development project critical to national defense. 8. The contract's focus on modularity and scalability is a key indicator of its intended long-term utility and adaptability.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of approximately $99.6 million over four years for developing a complex OSF framework appears to be within a reasonable range for such a specialized and critical defense system. Benchmarking against similar large-scale software development and simulation framework contracts is challenging due to the unique nature of missile defense systems. However, the CPFF pricing structure necessitates careful oversight to manage costs effectively. The value proposition hinges on the successful delivery of a robust, scalable, and adaptable framework that meets the stringent requirements of the Missile Defense Agency.

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 can lead to better pricing and innovation. The open competition suggests that the Missile Defense Agency sought the best possible solution and value from the market.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to bid, driving down costs and improving the quality of the delivered product or service.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the warfighters and analysts within the Department of Defense who will utilize the OSF framework for critical missile defense simulations and training. The services delivered include the development of a sophisticated software framework designed to integrate and manage complex modeling and simulation data. The geographic impact is national, supporting the strategic defense capabilities of the United States. Workforce implications include the need for highly skilled software engineers, simulation specialists, and systems integrators, likely concentrated in areas with defense industry presence.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Custom Computer Programming Services sector, specifically supporting the defense industry's need for advanced modeling and simulation capabilities. This sector is characterized by high demand for specialized software development, particularly for complex systems like missile defense. The market size for defense simulation and training systems is substantial, driven by the continuous need for technological advancement and operational readiness. This contract represents a significant investment in a core component of the Missile Defense Agency's simulation infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary award was made to a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this specific prime contract, though large prime contractors often engage small businesses for specialized support services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates rigorous financial oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable. The Missile Defense Agency's program management office would oversee technical performance and adherence to requirements. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting mechanisms, though specific details of oversight activities are not publicly detailed.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

defense, missile-defense-agency, modeling-and-simulation, custom-computer-programming, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, software-development, national-security, large-contract, us-federal-government, department-of-defense, alabama

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $99.6 million to TELEDYNE BROWN ENGINEERING, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEVELOP A SINGLE INCLUSIVE, MODULAR SCALABLE, RECONFIGURABLE, AND COMPOSABLE OSF FRAMEWORK TO MERGE SYSTEM LEVEL M&S. THE OSF FRAMEWORK SHALL BE DESIGNED TO BE MULTIPLE-INSTANCED WITH EACH INSTANCE CAPABLE OF BEING COMPOSED AND EXECUTED INDEPENDENTLY. THE OSF SHALL BE DESIGNED AND DEVELOPED TO SUPPORT BMDS M&S USE CASES INCLUDING GROUND TEST, PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT, WAR GAMES, EXERCISES AND TRAINING EVENTS.

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 $99.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-10-01. End: 2019-09-30.

What is the track record of Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. with similar large-scale defense simulation contracts?

Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. has a significant history of supporting defense and aerospace programs, including work on missile defense systems and complex simulation environments. While specific details on prior contracts of identical scope are not provided in this data snippet, the company's established presence in the sector suggests experience with the technical challenges involved. Their portfolio often includes engineering, integration, and technical services for government clients. A deeper dive into their contract history would reveal the scale and complexity of previous simulation development projects, their performance metrics, and any past issues or successes related to cost, schedule, and technical delivery.

How does the $99.6 million cost compare to similar OSF framework development contracts?

Direct comparisons for the development of a 'single inclusive, modular scalable, reconfigurable, and composable OSF framework' for missile defense are difficult due to the highly specialized and classified nature of such systems. However, large-scale software development contracts for complex defense systems can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. The value of this contract is contingent on the scope, complexity, and criticality of the OSF framework to the Missile Defense Agency's mission. Benchmarking would require access to data on similar, albeit potentially less specialized, simulation framework development efforts across different defense agencies or even commercial high-performance computing applications.

What are the primary technical risks associated with developing this OSF framework?

The primary technical risks include achieving true modularity and scalability across multiple instances, ensuring seamless integration of diverse simulation models, and maintaining high fidelity in performance assessments. Developing a 'composable' framework that can be independently executed and reconfigured presents significant software architecture challenges. Compatibility with existing and future missile defense systems, data standards, and computational resources are also critical risk areas. Furthermore, the complexity of supporting use cases like war games and training events requires robust performance and reliability, which can be difficult to guarantee in a novel framework.

How effective is the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this type of development?

The CPFF contract type is often used for research and development or complex projects where the scope is not fully defined at the outset, allowing for flexibility as the project evolves. It reimburses the contractor for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. While it can facilitate innovation and adaptation, it also places a significant burden on the government to closely monitor costs to prevent overruns. For a project like the OSF framework, where requirements might evolve, CPFF offers flexibility. However, it requires robust oversight to ensure cost efficiency and prevent the contractor from incurring excessive expenses, as the profit is fixed regardless of the final cost.

What are the historical spending patterns for modeling and simulation within the Missile Defense Agency?

The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) consistently allocates significant funding towards modeling and simulation (M&S) as it is fundamental to the design, testing, and validation of complex missile defense systems. Historical spending reflects a continuous investment in advanced simulation capabilities to reduce reliance on expensive physical testing and to explore a wider range of threat scenarios. While specific annual figures fluctuate based on program priorities and acquisition cycles, M&S represents a substantial portion of the MDA's budget, often in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually, encompassing software development, hardware infrastructure, and data management.

What are the implications of the 'multiple-instanced' and 'independently composed and executed' design requirements?

These design requirements imply a need for a highly sophisticated, service-oriented architecture. The 'multiple-instanced' aspect suggests the framework must support concurrent operations or distinct environments, perhaps for different simulation types or user groups. The 'composed and executed independently' requirement points towards a microservices or modular component-based design, where different functionalities can be assembled and run as needed. This approach enhances flexibility, scalability, and maintainability, allowing for updates or modifications to specific components without affecting the entire system. However, it also introduces complexity in managing interdependencies and ensuring consistent performance across all possible compositions.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesComputer Systems Design and Related ServicesCustom Computer Programming Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONSADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: HQ014710R0018

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Teledyne Technologies Incorporated

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: $101,055,566

Exercised Options: $101,055,566

Current Obligation: $99,649,771

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 239

Total Subaward Amount: $38,809,647

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HQ014711D0015

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2015-10-01

Current End Date: 2019-09-30

Potential End Date: 2019-09-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2025-09-23

More Contracts from Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc.

View all Teledyne Brown Engineering, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending