DoD's $312M WIN-T Production Contract Awarded to General Dynamics Raises Questions on Competition and Value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $312,443,715 ($312.4M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-09-28

End Date: 2017-08-16

Contract Duration: 1,783 days

Daily Burn Rate: $175.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TO PROCURE CONFIGURATION ITEMS FOR THE WIN-T FULL RATE PRODUCTION.

Place of Performance

Location: TAUNTON, BRISTOL County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02780

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $312.4 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: TO PROCURE CONFIGURATION ITEMS FOR THE WIN-T FULL RATE PRODUCTION. Key points: 1. The contract's value of over $312 million for configuration items suggests a significant investment in military communication systems. 2. Awarded on a sole-source basis, the lack of competition may have limited opportunities for price optimization. 3. The contract duration of nearly five years indicates a long-term commitment to these specific configuration items. 4. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to transfer some cost risk to the contractor, but the absence of competition complicates value assessment. 5. The contract falls under the 'Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing' NAICS code, highlighting its focus on communication hardware. 6. The absence of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements warrants further investigation into broader economic impacts.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The $312.4 million contract for WIN-T configuration items represents a substantial expenditure. Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The firm-fixed-price nature provides some cost certainty, but the lack of competition raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible value. Further analysis would require comparing the delivered capabilities and unit costs to industry standards or previous procurements of similar systems.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., was considered. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple proposals and evaluations. While sole-source awards can be justified in specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities, urgent needs), they inherently limit price discovery and may result in higher costs compared to a competitive environment.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers may not have benefited from the cost savings that typically arise from a bidding process. This could translate to a higher overall cost for the WIN-T program's configuration items.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, which receives critical communication configuration items for the WIN-T program. The contract delivers essential hardware and software components necessary for the functioning of the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, supporting military operations and readiness across various installations. Workforce implications may include employment at General Dynamics facilities involved in manufacturing and integration, as well as potential downstream effects on suppliers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the justification for a sole-source award.
Long contract duration without competitive re-evaluation could lead to complacency or price creep.
Absence of small business participation requirements may limit economic opportunities for smaller firms.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure shifts some cost risk to the contractor.
Award to an established contractor like General Dynamics may indicate a reliance on proven capabilities.
The contract supports a critical military network (WIN-T), implying a focus on national security needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader telecommunications and defense manufacturing sectors. The WIN-T program is a significant component of the U.S. military's tactical communication infrastructure. Spending in this area is driven by the need for secure, reliable, and mobile communication systems for deployed forces. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale defense communication system procurements, though direct comparisons are difficult due to the specialized nature of WIN-T components.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a specific requirement (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary contractor, General Dynamics, was not mandated to subcontract with small businesses for this award. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract appears minimal. There is no indication of a small business set-aside. Further analysis would be needed to determine if General Dynamics has a broader small business subcontracting program that might indirectly benefit small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices. The firm-fixed-price nature provides some level of cost oversight. Transparency regarding the sole-source justification and performance metrics would be key. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. The contract's duration and value necessitate ongoing monitoring to ensure performance and adherence to terms.

Related Government Programs

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)
Tactical Communication Systems
Defense Communications Infrastructure
Military Network Hardware
Command and Control Systems

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competitive bidding
Potential for cost overruns due to lack of competition
Limited transparency on justification for sole-source award

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $312.4 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. TO PROCURE CONFIGURATION ITEMS FOR THE WIN-T FULL RATE PRODUCTION.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, 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 $312.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-28. End: 2017-08-16.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are awarded when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, such as when a unique capability is needed, or in cases of urgent and compelling need where competition is not feasible. For this WIN-T contract, the justification would likely relate to the specialized nature of the configuration items, proprietary technology, or a critical need to maintain program continuity with a specific vendor. Without access to the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition), it's impossible to definitively state the reasons.

How does the $312.4 million contract value compare to other similar procurements for tactical communication systems?

Directly comparing the $312.4 million value to 'similar' procurements is challenging without more specific details on the exact configuration items procured. However, as a sole-source award for a major defense program like WIN-T, this figure represents a significant investment. Large-scale tactical communication systems often involve multi-year contracts worth hundreds of millions, or even billions, of dollars. The value is substantial within the context of defense spending on C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) assets. Benchmarking would ideally involve comparing unit costs for specific components or the overall cost per user/node, but this data is not available.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude include: 1) Higher Cost: Without competition, the contractor may not be incentivized to offer the lowest possible price, potentially leading to inflated costs for the government. 2) Reduced Innovation: A lack of competitive pressure can stifle innovation, as the contractor may have less incentive to develop more efficient or advanced solutions. 3) Vendor Lock-in: The government becomes dependent on a single vendor, making it difficult and costly to switch providers in the future. 4) Potential for Complacency: The contractor might become complacent regarding performance or responsiveness due to the guaranteed business. 5) Limited Oversight Effectiveness: While oversight mechanisms exist, the absence of competitive proposals makes it harder to establish robust performance benchmarks.

What is the historical spending pattern for WIN-T configuration items, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

The provided data only covers this specific contract award from 2012 to 2017. To understand historical spending patterns for WIN-T configuration items, one would need to examine prior contracts related to the WIN-T program, including research and development, prototyping, and earlier production phases. This $312.4 million award appears to be for 'full rate production,' suggesting it follows earlier development and testing stages. Without access to historical contract databases for WIN-T, it's difficult to place this specific award within a broader trend. However, large-scale military programs often involve significant, multi-year spending across various contract types and phases.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms were likely in place for this firm-fixed-price contract?

For a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract, the government's primary concern is ensuring the contractor delivers the specified goods or services according to the contract terms. Oversight likely focused on: 1) Acceptance of Deliverables: Verifying that the configuration items met all technical specifications and quality standards. 2) Delivery Schedule: Monitoring timely delivery of the items. 3) Contract Compliance: Ensuring adherence to all contractual clauses, including reporting requirements. While FFP shifts cost risk, the government still performs quality assurance and acceptance functions. Performance metrics might have included defect rates, on-time delivery percentages, and adherence to technical specifications. The contracting officer and program management team would be responsible for oversight.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 400 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS RD, TAUNTON, MA, 02780

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: $314,441,195

Exercised Options: $314,441,195

Current Obligation: $312,443,715

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T10DC007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline