DoD's $28.8M FBCB2/BFT Field Service Contract Awarded to Engineering Solutions & Products LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,808,999 ($28.8M)

Contractor: Engineering Solutions & Products LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-09-17

End Date: 2012-05-20

Contract Duration: 611 days

Daily Burn Rate: $47.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: REQUIREMENT IS FOR FORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND BRIGADE AND BELOW/BLUE FORCE TRACKING (FBCB2/BFT) FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE (FSR), FOR GLOBAL OPERATIONAL AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT FOR FBCB2/BFT EQUIPMENT FOR BOTH GROUND AND AVIATION SYSTEMS/EQUIPMENT.

Place of Performance

Location: CHANTILLY, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20151

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.8 million to ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUCTS LLC for work described as: REQUIREMENT IS FOR FORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND BRIGADE AND BELOW/BLUE FORCE TRACKING (FBCB2/BFT) FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE (FSR), FOR GLOBAL OPERATIONAL AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT FOR FBCB2/BFT EQUIPMENT FOR BOTH GROUND AND AVIATION SYSTEMS/EQUIPMENT. Key points: 1. Contract provides global operational and sustainment support for Blue Force Tracking equipment. 2. Focuses on both ground and aviation systems, indicating broad applicability. 3. Awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 4. Contract duration of 611 days implies a need for sustained support. 5. The contract type is Time and Materials, which can pose cost control challenges. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 811213 points to communication equipment repair and maintenance services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $28.8 million over approximately 20 months requires careful scrutiny. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. The Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, while flexible, can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently. The absence of a fixed price or cost-plus-fixed-fee structure suggests a higher risk for the government in terms of final expenditure.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing value, the specific number of bidders (two) warrants further investigation to ensure robust price discovery and prevent potential collusion or lack of innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with two bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices and encouraging better service offerings compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who rely on the FBCB2/BFT system for situational awareness in operational theaters. Services delivered include field support, maintenance, and sustainment for critical communication equipment. The global operational support implies impact across various geographic locations where U.S. forces are deployed. Workforce implications include the need for skilled technicians and support personnel to maintain and operate the FBCB2/BFT systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type increases risk of cost overruns.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may not have yielded the best possible price.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes value assessment challenging.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, maximizing potential vendor pool.
Provides essential sustainment for a critical battlefield technology.
Global operational support ensures readiness across diverse environments.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically supporting communication and battlefield management systems. The market for such specialized technical support is often dominated by a few key defense contractors. The spending of $28.8 million is significant for a specific sustainment contract, reflecting the importance and complexity of the FBCB2/BFT system. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other sustainment contracts for similar advanced military technology.

Small Business Impact

The contract details do not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. Given the specialized nature of FBCB2/BFT support, it is possible that larger prime contractors are involved, with potential for subcontracting opportunities for smaller firms with relevant expertise. However, without explicit set-aside provisions, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is not guaranteed.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance work statement and delivery schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed operational oversight and Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would depend on specific clauses and any reported issues.

Related Government Programs

Blue Force Tracking Systems
Battle Command Systems
Military Communication Equipment Sustainment
Field Service Representative Contracts
Department of Defense Logistics Support

Risk Flags

Time and Materials Pricing
Limited Competition (2 Bidders)
Potential for Cost Overruns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.8 million to ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUCTS LLC. REQUIREMENT IS FOR FORCE XXI BATTLE COMMAND BRIGADE AND BELOW/BLUE FORCE TRACKING (FBCB2/BFT) FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE (FSR), FOR GLOBAL OPERATIONAL AND SUSTAINMENT SUPPORT FOR FBCB2/BFT EQUIPMENT FOR BOTH GROUND AND AVIATION SYSTEMS/EQUIPMENT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS & PRODUCTS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-09-17. End: 2012-05-20.

What is the track record of Engineering Solutions & Products LLC in supporting similar defense contracts?

Engineering Solutions & Products LLC (ESP) has a history of providing technical and engineering services to the U.S. military. While specific details on their past performance for FBCB2/BFT systems are not provided in this summary, their award suggests they possess the necessary qualifications and experience. A deeper dive into ESP's contract history, including past performance reviews and any reported issues on previous government contracts, would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of their reliability and capability in fulfilling this specific requirement.

How does the $28.8 million contract value compare to similar FBCB2/BFT sustainment efforts?

Benchmarking the $28.8 million contract value requires access to historical data on similar FBCB2/BFT sustainment contracts, which is not readily available in the provided data. Factors influencing cost include the scope of services (global vs. regional), duration, specific equipment covered (ground vs. aviation), and the level of technical expertise required. The Time and Materials (T&M) nature of this contract also makes direct comparison difficult, as T&M contracts can fluctuate in final cost based on actual labor hours and material usage, unlike fixed-price contracts. A comprehensive comparison would necessitate analyzing contract duration, service scope, and pricing models of comparable contracts.

What are the primary risks associated with the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type for this requirement?

The primary risk associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for FBCB2/BFT sustainment is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M agreements do not set a ceiling on the total expenditure, as payment is based on the actual hours worked by contractor personnel and the cost of materials used. This can lead to unpredictable final costs for the government if the contractor's efficiency is low, if scope creep occurs without proper controls, or if the duration of support is underestimated. Robust oversight and clear task definitions are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective is the FBCB2/BFT system, and how does this contract contribute to its operational effectiveness?

The Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below/Blue Force Tracking (FBCB2/BFT) system is a critical component of modern battlefield command and control, providing real-time situational awareness by displaying the location of friendly forces on a digital map. Its effectiveness lies in enhancing coordination, reducing fratricide, and improving decision-making speed. This contract directly contributes to the system's operational effectiveness by ensuring its continuous functionality through field service, maintenance, and sustainment support for both ground and aviation platforms globally. Without such support, the system's reliability and availability would be compromised, diminishing its value on the battlefield.

What is the historical spending trend for FBCB2/BFT sustainment by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing the historical spending trend for FBCB2/BFT sustainment by the Department of the Army would require access to comprehensive historical contract data. This specific $28.8 million contract represents a portion of that spending over its 2010-2012 period. To understand the trend, one would need to examine total obligated amounts for FBCB2/BFT sustainment contracts over multiple fiscal years, identify the primary contractors involved, and observe any fluctuations in spending that might correlate with system upgrades, deployment levels, or changes in contracting strategies. This single award provides a data point but not a trend.

What are the implications of awarding this contract to Engineering Solutions & Products LLC given the limited number of bidders?

Awarding this contract to Engineering Solutions & Products LLC, with only one other bidder, raises questions about the extent of competition achieved. While full and open competition was utilized, a low number of bids (two) can sometimes indicate a niche market, high barriers to entry for potential competitors, or insufficient outreach. This limited competition might mean that the government did not receive the most advantageous pricing or the widest range of innovative solutions possible. It suggests that taxpayers may not have received the maximum value for money, although the specific impact depends on the pricing negotiated and the quality of services provided by the selected contractor.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Other Services (except Public Administration) › Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance › Communication Equipment Repair and Maintenance

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 14566 LEE RD, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,808,999

Exercised Options: $28,808,999

Current Obligation: $28,808,999

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T09DB201

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline