SIGMA DEFENSE SYSTEMS LLC awarded $7.6M for communications equipment, with a 356-day performance period

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $7,634,984 ($7.6M)

Contractor: Sigma Defense Systems LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2025-02-01

End Date: 2026-01-23

Contract Duration: 356 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: STINGRAY III IDIQ TO 87 DISA ASEC AND AFRICOM FSR

Place of Performance

Location: FORT GEORGE G MEADE, ANNE ARUNDEL County, MARYLAND, 20755

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $7.6 million to SIGMA DEFENSE SYSTEMS LLC for work described as: STINGRAY III IDIQ TO 87 DISA ASEC AND AFRICOM FSR Key points: 1. The contract value of $7.6 million for a 356-day period suggests a moderate investment in communications equipment. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open competition after exclusion of sources, implying a deliberate selection process. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, given the firm-fixed-price contract type which shifts some risk to the contractor. 4. Performance context is within the 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code, aligning with specialized industry needs. 5. Sector positioning is within the broader IT and Defense sectors, supporting critical communication infrastructure. 6. The contract's duration of just under a year suggests a need for timely delivery and implementation of communication solutions.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $7.6 million for a 356-day period appears reasonable for specialized communications equipment. Benchmarking against similar IDIQ contracts for communications equipment from GSA would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure is generally favorable for the government in managing cost certainty. Without specific per-unit cost data, a detailed price assessment is limited, but the overall contract value seems aligned with typical federal procurements of this nature.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' strategy. This indicates that while the competition was broad, specific sources may have been excluded based on predefined criteria, possibly related to technical capabilities or prior performance. The exact number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' nature suggests a robust competitive environment was sought, aiming to leverage market forces for best value.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with exclusions, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple vendors to offer competitive pricing and innovative solutions, potentially leading to lower overall costs and higher quality.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the U.S. Army (ASEC and AFRICOM) who will utilize the communications equipment. The services delivered involve the provision of specialized communications equipment, crucial for operational readiness and command and control. Geographic impact is focused on areas supported by ASEC and AFRICOM, potentially including overseas military installations. Workforce implications are indirect, primarily supporting the contractor's workforce and potentially the federal personnel managing the contract and utilizing the equipment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in if the 'exclusion of sources' was overly restrictive.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical communication equipment could pose supply chain risks.
Ensuring interoperability with existing communication systems requires careful technical validation.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to SIGMA DEFENSE SYSTEMS LLC suggests they met stringent technical and performance requirements.
GSA's involvement indicates adherence to established procurement best practices and oversight.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' sector, a niche within the broader telecommunications and defense industries. The market for specialized military communications equipment is characterized by high technical barriers to entry, stringent security requirements, and significant government investment. Federal spending in this area supports national security objectives and technological advancement. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other IDIQ contracts awarded by agencies like DISA or the Department of Defense for similar communication systems.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this specific contract. This suggests the procurement was focused on specialized capabilities likely held by larger, established firms. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses, which could limit opportunities for smaller entities within the defense industrial base for this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) typically employs robust oversight mechanisms for its IDIQ contracts and subsequent task orders. Accountability is managed through contract performance monitoring, delivery schedules, and adherence to the firm-fixed-price terms. Transparency is generally maintained through federal procurement databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) procurements
U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) support contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules
IDIQ Contracts for Communications Equipment
Federal Acquisition Service contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Dependence on specific technology or vendor capabilities.
Timeliness of delivery critical for operational readiness.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $7.6 million to SIGMA DEFENSE SYSTEMS LLC. STINGRAY III IDIQ TO 87 DISA ASEC AND AFRICOM FSR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SIGMA DEFENSE SYSTEMS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $7.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-02-01. End: 2026-01-23.

What is the specific type of communications equipment being procured under this contract?

The contract falls under NAICS code 334290, 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing.' While the specific details of the 'STINGRAY III IDIQ TO 87 DISA ASEC AND AFRICOM FSR' are not fully elaborated in the provided data, this classification suggests the equipment is specialized and likely includes components such as radios, transceivers, satellite communication devices, or related hardware critical for military operations. These systems are designed to meet the demanding requirements of defense agencies like DISA, ASEC, and AFRICOM, ensuring reliable communication in diverse and often challenging environments.

How does the $7.6 million contract value compare to similar procurements for communications equipment by DISA or AFRICOM?

Benchmarking the $7.6 million contract value requires access to historical procurement data for similar communications equipment. However, for a 356-day period, this value suggests a significant but not exceptionally large procurement. DISA and AFRICOM often engage in larger, multi-year contracts for complex communication systems. This specific award, being a delivery order under an IDIQ, might represent a specific tranche of equipment or a particular set of needs. A detailed comparison would involve analyzing the quantity, technical specifications, and duration of comparable contracts awarded within the last 2-3 years to gauge if the pricing is competitive and reflects fair market value for the specified goods.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to assess the performance of SIGMA DEFENSE SYSTEMS LLC under this contract?

While the provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract, typical metrics for communications equipment procurements include on-time delivery, adherence to technical specifications, equipment reliability and functionality, and successful integration with existing systems. For a firm-fixed-price contract, meeting delivery schedules and ensuring the equipment functions as specified are paramount. The government will likely monitor defect rates, warranty claims, and user feedback. Performance evaluations may also consider the contractor's responsiveness to any issues or required modifications, ensuring the equipment meets the operational needs of DISA, ASEC, and AFRICOM.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' by the General Services Administration (GSA)?

The General Services Administration (GSA) procures a wide array of goods and services, including communications equipment, often through its Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) and other contracting vehicles. Historical spending in the 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' (NAICS 334290) category by GSA can be substantial, driven by the needs of various federal agencies. Analyzing GSA's spending trends in this sector would reveal the overall demand, the types of equipment most frequently purchased, and the primary contractors. This specific $7.6 million award represents a portion of that broader spending, supporting specific agency requirements rather than a general category-wide purchase.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award type?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award type, while aiming for broad competition, introduces specific risks. The 'exclusion of sources' implies that certain potential bidders were deemed ineligible based on criteria set by the agency. If these criteria are too narrow or subjective, it could inadvertently limit the pool of qualified vendors, potentially reducing the level of competition and leading to less favorable pricing or innovation. There's also a risk that eligible vendors might perceive the exclusion criteria as unfair, potentially leading to protests or discouraging future participation. Ensuring the exclusion criteria are objective, justified, and clearly communicated is crucial to mitigate these risks and maintain fair competition.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 47QFLA25Q0029

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 500 CORPORATE POINTE, WARNER ROBINS, GA, 31088

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,579,961

Exercised Options: $12,579,961

Current Obligation: $7,634,984

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 1

Total Subaward Amount: $3,716,487

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QFLA19D0010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline