DoD's $87M engineering services contract with L3 Technologies awarded in 2001, ending in 2010

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $87,187,477 ($87.2M)

Contractor: L3 Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-10-01

End Date: 2010-06-30

Contract Duration: 3,194 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200210!000407!5700!GJ05 !WR-ALC/LRK !F0960402C0011 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20011001!20020930!008983355!008898884!008898843!N!L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION!640 N 2200 W !SALT LAKE CITY !UT!84116!67000!035!49!SALT LAKE CITY !SALT LAKE !UTAH !+000001361815!N!N!000000000000!5999!MISC ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541330!E! !3! ! !C! ! !99990909!B! ! !N!Z!D!N!V!1!001!N!6A!A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!A!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE County, UTAH, 84116

State: Utah Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $87.2 million to L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: 200210!000407!5700!GJ05 !WR-ALC/LRK !F0960402C0011 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20011001!20020930!008983355!008898884!008898843!N!L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION!640 N 2200 W !SALT LAKE CITY !UT!84116!67000!035!49!SALT LAKE CITY !SALT … Key points: 1. Contract awarded for engineering services, indicating a need for specialized technical expertise. 2. The contract's duration of over 8 years suggests a long-term requirement for the services. 3. Awarded as a definitive contract, implying a firm agreement for services. 4. The cost-plus-incentive-fee pricing structure suggests performance-based incentives for the contractor. 5. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies and market engagement. 6. The contractor, L3 Technologies, is a significant player in the defense sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award amount of $87,187,477.48 for engineering services over nearly nine years is difficult to benchmark without more specific details on the services rendered. The cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) structure can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly, but also incentivizes efficiency. Given the lack of competition, it's challenging to assess if the pricing represents fair market value. Further analysis would require understanding the specific engineering tasks and deliverables.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED,' indicating a sole-source procurement. This means that only one offeror was solicited and considered. While sole-source awards can be justified for unique capabilities or urgent needs, they typically result in less competitive pricing and may not always represent the best value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the government does not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive bidding process.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from specialized engineering services to support its operations. The contract likely supports various defense programs requiring engineering expertise. The geographic impact is centered in Utah, where L3 Technologies is located. The contract supports a workforce skilled in engineering and related technical fields.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have led to higher costs than a competed contract.
The long duration of the contract could indicate a lack of flexibility in adapting to changing technological needs.
Cost-plus contracts, even with incentives, carry inherent risks of cost escalation if not meticulously managed.

Positive Signals

Award to a known contractor, L3 Technologies, suggests a level of trust and established relationship.
The incentive fee structure aims to align contractor performance with government objectives.
The contract was a definitive contract, implying a clear scope and terms.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader Defense industry. The Defense sector is characterized by complex technological requirements and significant government spending. Engineering services are essential for the design, development, testing, and sustainment of military platforms and systems. Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without detailed service descriptions, but the overall defense engineering market is substantial, with numerous firms competing for various contracts.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides or subcontracting opportunities. The award was made to L3 Technologies, a large corporation. Without specific subcontracting plans or data, the impact on the small business ecosystem is not discernible from this record.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The specific accountability measures would be detailed within the contract terms and conditions. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the age of the data, making public assessment of oversight effectiveness difficult.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Engineering Services
L3 Technologies Defense Contracts
Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee Contracts
Sole-Source Defense Procurements

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Cost Overruns (CPIF structure)
Long Contract Duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $87.2 million to L3 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. 200210!000407!5700!GJ05 !WR-ALC/LRK !F0960402C0011 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20011001!20020930!008983355!008898884!008898843!N!L-3 COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION!640 N 2200 W !SALT LAKE CITY !UT!84116!67000!035!49!SALT LAKE CITY !SALT LAKE !UTAH !+000001361815!N!N!000000000000!5999!MISC ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541330!E! !3! ! !C! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is L3 TECHNOLOGIES, 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 $87.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-10-01. End: 2010-06-30.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Engineering Services' with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330. However, the specific nature of these services is not detailed. This could range from research and development support, system design, testing and evaluation, to technical consulting for various defense platforms or programs. Without further documentation or a detailed contract statement of work, the precise services remain unspecified. Understanding the exact deliverables is crucial for a comprehensive value assessment and for comparing this contract to similar engineering service agreements within the Department of Defense.

How does the total contract value of approximately $87 million compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by the DoD during that period?

Comparing the $87 million contract value requires context regarding the scope and duration of services. Engineering services contracts within the DoD can vary significantly in size, from small, specialized task orders to multi-billion dollar, long-term programs. This contract, valued at roughly $87 million over nearly nine years (2001-2010), represents a moderate annual expenditure. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to identify contracts with similar service descriptions (e.g., systems engineering, R&D support) and similar timeframes. However, given the sole-source nature and the age of the data, finding directly comparable competed contracts for precise benchmarking is challenging. Generally, sole-source awards may command higher prices than competed ones, making direct value-for-money comparisons difficult without detailed market analysis.

What were the specific performance metrics and incentive criteria tied to the 'incentive fee' component of this contract?

The contract type is listed as 'COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE' (CPIF). Under a CPIF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs and receives a target fee, but the final fee is adjusted based on performance relative to predetermined objective criteria. These criteria typically relate to factors like cost reduction, schedule adherence, or technical performance. The specific metrics and the formula for calculating the incentive fee would have been detailed in the contract's 'Schedule' or 'Incentive Fee Plan.' Without access to the full contract document, these specific performance metrics remain unknown. The effectiveness of the incentive fee in driving desired outcomes is therefore not directly assessable from the provided summary data.

What is the track record of L3 Technologies (now L3Harris Technologies) in performing similar engineering services contracts for the Department of Defense?

L3 Technologies, now part of L3Harris Technologies, has a long and extensive history of performing complex engineering and technology services for the Department of Defense. The company has been involved in a wide array of defense programs, including aerospace, communications, electronic warfare, and intelligence systems. Their track record generally includes successful execution of large-scale contracts, often involving advanced technological development and integration. While specific performance details for every contract are not publicly available, L3Harris is recognized as a major defense contractor with significant capabilities. Historical performance data, including past performance evaluations and any contract disputes or awards, would provide a more granular view of their reliability and expertise in delivering engineering services.

Were there any identified risks or concerns associated with this contract during its performance period?

The provided data does not explicitly list any risks or concerns that arose during the performance of this specific contract. However, general risks associated with cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts, especially those awarded sole-source and with a long duration, include potential cost overruns if performance targets are not met or if scope creep occurs without adequate controls. The lack of competition inherently carries a risk of not achieving the best possible price. Without access to contract performance reports, Inspector General findings, or program reviews related to this specific award, a detailed assessment of realized risks is not possible. Future analysis could involve searching government audit reports or program management reviews for this contract number.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC EQPT COMPNTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 640 N 2200 W, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 84116

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline