DoD's $85M 'BIG SAFARI' contract to Sierra Nevada Company awarded via sole-source justification

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $85,229,401 ($85.2M)

Contractor: Sierra Nevada Company, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-08-01

End Date: 2018-07-31

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $234.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF ACAT III BIG SAFARI

Place of Performance

Location: ENGLEWOOD, DENVER County, COLORADO, 80112

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $85.2 million to SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF ACAT III BIG SAFARI Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, indicating potential for cost overruns. 2. Sole-source award limits price competition and may not represent the best value. 3. Short contract duration of 364 days suggests a specific, time-bound need. 4. The contract falls under 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,' a broad category. 5. No small business set-aside was applied, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms. 6. The contract was awarded as a delivery order under a larger indefinite-delivery contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, combined with a sole-source award, raises concerns about value for money. Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The fixed fee component provides some cost control, but the overall cost-plus nature means the government bears the risk of cost increases. The provided data does not include a detailed breakdown of costs or profit margins, making a precise value assessment challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one contractor, Sierra Nevada Company, LLC, was solicited. This approach bypasses the competitive bidding process typically used to ensure fair pricing and identify the best value. The justification for a sole-source award is not provided in the data, but it usually implies unique capabilities or urgent needs. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for other firms to bid, potentially leading to higher prices than if multiple bids were considered.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without competing offers, the government could not leverage market forces to secure the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Air Force, receiving specialized technical services. The contract likely supports advanced technology development or integration for national security. Services are delivered under the 'BIG SAFARI' program, suggesting a focus on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the Department of Defense's operational areas, with potential for global reach. Workforce implications may include specialized engineering and technical roles within Sierra Nevada Company.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits transparency and potential for cost savings through competition.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract structure shifts cost overrun risk to the government.
Broad service category ('All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services') lacks specificity, potentially obscuring detailed performance metrics.
No indication of small business participation or subcontracting opportunities.

Positive Signals

Award to an established contractor (Sierra Nevada Company) suggests a degree of confidence in their capabilities.
Delivery order structure implies it's part of a larger, potentially strategic, program ('BIG SAFARI').
Fixed fee component provides a defined profit margin, offering some cost predictability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad 'Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' sector, which is a significant area of federal spending. This sector encompasses a wide range of activities, from research and development to specialized engineering and consulting. The 'BIG SAFARI' program, under which this contract was issued, is known for its focus on rapid acquisition of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. Spending in this area is critical for national defense and often involves advanced technologies and highly specialized expertise, making competition dynamics and value assessment complex.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This means that opportunities for small business participation, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, were not explicitly mandated or prioritized in this specific award. While Sierra Nevada Company may engage small businesses as subcontractors, the absence of a set-aside suggests that larger, established firms were the primary focus for this requirement. This could limit the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. As a delivery order under a larger contract, oversight might be integrated into the parent contract's management structure. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award. Specific accountability measures would depend on the terms outlined in the contract and delivery order, including performance metrics and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

BIG SAFARI Program
Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems
Aerospace and Defense Services
Specialized Technical Services Contracts
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may limit competition and potentially increase costs.
Cost-plus contract type shifts cost risk to the government.
Broad service category lacks specificity for detailed performance analysis.
Short contract duration may impact long-term program continuity.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $85.2 million to SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC. IGF::CT::IGF ACAT III BIG SAFARI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $85.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-08-01. End: 2018-07-31.

What specific services or technologies does the 'BIG SAFARI' program, and this contract in particular, entail?

The 'BIG SAFARI' (Broad Area Ground, Air, and Space Intelligence, Analysis, and Reconnaissance) program is an Air Force initiative focused on rapidly acquiring and integrating intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. While the specific details of this particular $85 million contract awarded to Sierra Nevada Company are not fully elaborated in the provided data, contracts under BIG SAFARI typically involve the development, modification, integration, and sustainment of airborne and ground-based ISR platforms and systems. This could include sensor integration, data processing, communication systems, and specialized aircraft modifications to enhance intelligence gathering and analysis for national security purposes. The broad category 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' suggests a wide scope of potential activities.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED,' signifying a sole-source justification. While the specific reason is not detailed, common justifications for sole-source awards include situations where only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, urgent and compelling needs that preclude competition, or when the contract is a follow-on to a previously competed contract where only the original contractor possesses the necessary knowledge or proprietary data. For a program like 'BIG SAFARI,' it's plausible that Sierra Nevada Company possesses unique technical expertise, proprietary technology, or existing infrastructure critical to the specific ISR mission that cannot be readily replicated by other vendors, thus necessitating a sole-source award.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type compare to other contract types in terms of risk and potential value for the government?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are used when the scope of work is not precisely defined, or when there is significant uncertainty in the cost of performance. In a CPFF contract, the government reimburses the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing the contractor's profit. This structure shifts a substantial portion of the cost risk to the government, as the final price can exceed initial estimates if costs escalate. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, where the contractor bears most of the cost risk and the price is set upfront, CPFF offers less cost certainty for the government. However, CPFF can be advantageous for complex, R&D-intensive, or evolving requirements where defining a fixed price upfront would be impractical or lead to excessively high bids to cover contractor risk.

What is Sierra Nevada Company's track record with the Department of Defense, particularly on 'BIG SAFARI' or similar ISR programs?

Sierra Nevada Company, LLC (SNC) has a significant track record as a defense contractor, particularly in areas related to aerospace, aviation, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems. They have been a key player in various Air Force programs, including those focused on modifying aircraft for ISR missions and developing related technologies. While the specific contract data provided is limited, SNC's involvement in the 'BIG SAFARI' program suggests a history of successful performance and specialized capabilities relevant to the program's objectives. Their broader portfolio includes work on sensor integration, electronic warfare, unmanned systems, and secure communications, all of which align with the typical needs of advanced ISR programs within the Department of Defense.

Are there any comparable contracts or spending benchmarks available for similar 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' within the defense sector?

Benchmarking 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' is challenging due to the broad nature of the NAICS code (541990). However, within the defense sector, contracts for specialized technical services, systems integration, and advanced research and development can range significantly in value. For ISR-related programs, contracts can often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the complexity, duration, and technology involved. Comparing this $85 million contract requires looking at specific capabilities delivered. Without more granular data on the services rendered, direct comparisons are difficult. However, the fact that it's a sole-source award to a single large company for a program like 'BIG SAFARI' suggests a high degree of specialization and potentially a significant scope of work, placing it within the upper range of specialized technical service contracts.

What are the potential implications of the short contract duration (364 days) on program continuity and long-term strategy?

A contract duration of 364 days, just shy of a full year, often indicates a specific, short-term requirement or a phase within a larger, longer-term effort. For the 'BIG SAFARI' program, this duration might represent a specific project milestone, a technology insertion phase, or a period of testing and evaluation before a more substantial, longer-term commitment is made. While it allows for agility and reassessment, such short durations can sometimes lead to inefficiencies if there are frequent re-competitions or contract extensions, impacting program continuity and potentially increasing administrative overhead. It suggests that the immediate need was defined, but the long-term strategic vision might be addressed through subsequent contract actions or different contract vehicles.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 444 SALOMON CIR, SPARKS, NV, 89434

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, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $85,229,401

Exercised Options: $85,229,401

Current Obligation: $85,229,401

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 44

Total Subaward Amount: $31,243,254

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA862016G3013

IDV Type: BOA

Timeline