DoD's $1.21B R&D contract with General Dynamics C4 Systems shows long-term investment in advanced technologies

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $121,213,201 ($121.2M)

Contractor: General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-03-07

End Date: 2010-12-31

Contract Duration: 2,856 days

Daily Burn Rate: $42.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: R&D

Place of Performance

Location: SCOTTSDALE, MARICOPA County, ARIZONA, 85257

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $121.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS C4 SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Significant long-term investment in R&D, indicating a focus on future capabilities. 2. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust market. 3. Performance-based contract type (Cost Plus Incentive Fee) aims to align contractor incentives with government goals. 4. Long duration (2856 days) suggests a complex, multi-year development effort. 5. Contractor is a major defense industry player with extensive experience. 6. Geographic concentration in Arizona for contract performance. 7. No small business set-aside, indicating the scale and nature of the requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of over $1.21 billion over its nearly 8-year duration represents a substantial investment in research and development. While specific performance metrics and comparable R&D contracts are not detailed here, the Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure suggests an attempt to manage costs and incentivize efficient performance. Benchmarking this against other large-scale defense R&D efforts would provide further context on value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to compete. With four bids received, this suggests a healthy level of competition for this significant R&D requirement. This competitive process is expected to have driven more favorable pricing and innovative solutions compared to a sole-source award.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that likely secured better value and potentially more advanced technological outcomes for the significant investment.

Public Impact

Benefits the Department of Defense by advancing critical research and development capabilities. Services delivered likely include advanced technological solutions and prototypes in physical, engineering, and life sciences. Geographic impact is concentrated in Arizona, where contract performance occurred. Workforce implications include highly skilled R&D professionals and engineers employed by the contractor and potentially subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration could lead to scope creep or evolving requirements over time.
Cost-plus contract types can sometimes lead to less stringent cost control if not managed carefully.
Reliance on a single large contractor for a significant R&D effort carries inherent risks.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive market.
Use of an incentive fee structure aligns contractor and government interests.
Contractor is a well-established entity with a strong track record in defense contracting.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. This is a critical area for defense modernization, involving significant investment in innovation. The market for such R&D is typically dominated by large, specialized defense contractors. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale, multi-year R&D programs within the DoD or other federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific small business subcontracting requirements. This suggests the nature of the R&D was highly specialized, requiring capabilities typically found in larger, established firms. The absence of small business involvement in the prime contract may limit direct opportunities for smaller innovative companies on this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure requires careful monitoring of costs and performance against established targets. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting mechanisms, though specific details of R&D progress are often sensitive.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Programs
Advanced Technology Development Contracts
Engineering and Technical Services Contracts
Information Technology Research
Aerospace Research and Development

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of technology obsolescence.
Cost-plus contract type requires diligent oversight to manage costs effectively.
Concentration of R&D effort with a single large contractor.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $121.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS C4 SYSTEMS, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS C4 SYSTEMS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $121.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-03-07. End: 2010-12-31.

What specific R&D areas did this contract focus on within physical, engineering, and life sciences?

While the provided data specifies the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541710 for 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences,' it does not detail the specific sub-disciplines or technological areas. Given the contractor, General Dynamics C4 Systems, and the Department of Defense as the agency, it is highly probable that the R&D focused on areas related to command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems, advanced materials, sensor technologies, or potentially cyber capabilities. These are critical areas for modern defense operations, requiring significant investment in innovation and technological advancement to maintain a strategic advantage.

How does the $1.21 billion contract value compare to typical R&D spending in the defense sector?

A contract value of $1.21 billion for R&D over a period of nearly eight years is substantial, even within the large defense sector. The Department of Defense consistently invests billions annually in research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E). Large, multi-year R&D contracts like this one are common for developing next-generation capabilities, such as advanced weapon systems, communication networks, or intelligence platforms. While this figure is significant, it represents a portion of the overall DoD R&D budget, which can exceed tens of billions of dollars annually. The value reflects the complexity, duration, and strategic importance of the research undertaken.

What were the key performance indicators or milestones for this Cost Plus Incentive Fee contract?

The specific performance indicators and milestones for this Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract are not detailed in the provided data. However, CPIF contracts are designed to incentivize the contractor to meet or exceed certain performance targets while controlling costs. Typically, these targets would be related to technical performance (e.g., achieving specific system capabilities, reliability rates, or efficiency metrics), schedule adherence (e.g., completing research phases or delivering prototypes by certain dates), and cost targets. The 'incentive fee' component means that if the contractor performs better than the target on agreed-upon metrics, they can earn a higher fee, and if they perform worse, their fee is reduced, potentially down to a minimum level. Careful oversight by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) would be crucial for monitoring progress against these undefined milestones.

What is the significance of General Dynamics C4 Systems being the sole contractor for this large R&D effort?

General Dynamics C4 Systems is a major defense contractor with extensive experience in developing complex systems, particularly in the areas of command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I). Awarding a $1.21 billion R&D contract to a single, established entity like General Dynamics suggests that the government perceived them as having the unique expertise, infrastructure, and capacity required for this specific, long-term research initiative. This approach can streamline management and ensure continuity, but it also concentrates risk with one provider. The full and open competition preceding the award indicates that other capable firms were considered, but General Dynamics likely offered the best overall value proposition based on technical approach, past performance, and projected costs.

How might the long duration (2856 days) impact the relevance and cost-effectiveness of the R&D outcomes?

A contract duration of 2856 days, approximately 7.8 years, for R&D presents both opportunities and challenges. On the positive side, it allows for in-depth research, iterative development, and the exploration of complex technological challenges that cannot be resolved quickly. This extended timeframe can lead to more robust and mature solutions. However, technology evolves rapidly, especially in fields like defense R&D. There is a risk that the technologies or concepts being developed could become outdated or less relevant by the time the contract concludes. To mitigate this, effective contract management, regular reviews, and flexibility to adapt research directions based on emerging trends are crucial. The cost-effectiveness hinges on whether the final outcomes provide a significant, long-term capability advantage that justifies the substantial investment over such an extended period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 8201 E MCDOWELL RD, SCOTTSDALE, AZ, 85257

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline