DoD's $80M 'BIG SAFARI' contract to Sierra Nevada Company awarded without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $80,197,009 ($80.2M)

Contractor: Sierra Nevada Company, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-07-13

End Date: 2020-09-25

Contract Duration: 805 days

Daily Burn Rate: $99.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO 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 $80.2 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. The contract was not competed, raising questions about price discovery and value for money. 3. A high contract value for 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' warrants scrutiny. 4. The duration of 805 days suggests a significant, ongoing requirement. 5. The absence of small business set-asides is noted, with no indication of subcontracting plans. 6. Performance is in Colorado, a key hub for aerospace and defense contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, combined with a lack of competition, makes a direct value-for-money assessment difficult. Without benchmark data or competitive bids, it's challenging to determine if the $80.2 million price tag represents a fair market value. The absence of a specific Product Service Code (PSC) also hinders comparison to similar service contracts. Further analysis would require understanding the specific services rendered and their necessity.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not open to competitive bidding. The data indicates 'NOT COMPETED' and a contract type of 'COST NO FEE' (likely a typo and should be Cost Plus Fixed Fee given the 'PT' field). This approach bypasses the standard procurement process designed to foster competition and secure the best prices for the government. The lack of bidders means the government did not benefit from a range of proposals and pricing strategies.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the government may not achieve the most favorable pricing achievable through a competitive process. This limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to reduce expenditure.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is Sierra Nevada Company, LLC, a defense contractor. The contract likely supports specialized technical and scientific services for the Department of the Air Force. The geographic impact is centered in Colorado, where the contract is being performed. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for technical and scientific professionals within Sierra Nevada Company.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may result in suboptimal pricing.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts carry inherent risk of cost escalation.
Absence of small business participation noted.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a known entity in the defense sector.
Specific services, though not detailed, are likely critical to Air Force operations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' category, which is broad and encompasses a wide range of specialized support. The defense sector, particularly the Air Force, frequently procures such services for advanced technology development, research, and operational support. Comparable spending in this broad category can vary significantly, but large sole-source awards like this often indicate unique capabilities or urgent requirements.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a factor, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) and 'sb' (small business) fields are false. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans. This suggests that the prime contractor, Sierra Nevada Company, LLC, is expected to perform the majority, if not all, of the work, and opportunities for small businesses within the supply chain are not explicitly mandated or detailed in this award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. The Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Defense also has jurisdiction to investigate potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of detailed public reporting on specific deliverables and costs. Accountability relies on the contractual terms and the government's ability to monitor performance and costs.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
Air Force Technical Support Services
Sole-Source Defense Procurements
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing
Lack of competition
No small business participation indicated

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $80.2 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 $80.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-07-13. End: 2020-09-25.

What specific services does IGF::CT::IGF ACAT III BIG SAFARI entail, and why was it deemed necessary to award this contract on a sole-source basis?

The specific services provided under the 'BIG SAFARI' contract are not detailed in the provided data, beyond being categorized as 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services.' The designation 'IGF ACAT III' suggests it relates to a specific program or project within the Air Force, potentially involving intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, or advanced technology development. The rationale for a sole-source award typically stems from factors such as unique capabilities possessed by only one contractor, urgent and compelling needs where competition is impractical, or follow-on work to a previously competed effort where only one source can provide the necessary integration. Without further documentation or justification from the awarding agency, the precise reasons for the sole-source award remain speculative but likely relate to specialized expertise or proprietary technology held by Sierra Nevada Company, LLC.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure of this contract potentially impact its overall cost to the government compared to a fixed-price contract?

A Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract, indicated by 'PT' likely being Cost Plus Fixed Fee, allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure shifts much of the cost risk to the government, as the final price is not capped. If the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, the government pays the higher amount. While it can be suitable for research and development or uncertain scope projects, it offers less incentive for the contractor to control costs compared to a fixed-price contract. The fixed fee, however, provides a predictable profit margin for the contractor. The government's ability to manage and audit costs is crucial to mitigate potential overspending under a CPFF arrangement.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' by the Department of the Air Force, and how does this $80.2 million contract compare?

The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for the Department of the Air Force in the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' category. However, this category is inherently broad and can encompass a significant portion of the Air Force's procurement budget, especially for specialized R&D, engineering, and technical support. An $80.2 million award, particularly if sole-source, represents a substantial investment. To contextualize it, one would need to analyze aggregate spending data for this NAICS code (541990) across the Air Force over several fiscal years. Without that broader dataset, it's difficult to definitively state if this contract is unusually large or typical for specific types of sole-source procurements within this service area.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude, particularly concerning contractor performance and accountability?

Sole-source awards of this magnitude carry several risks. Primarily, the lack of competition can reduce the incentive for the contractor to perform efficiently and cost-effectively, as there is no market pressure from competing bids. Accountability can be more challenging as the government relies heavily on the contractor's own reporting and the government's oversight capabilities. Performance risks include potential delays, quality issues, or scope creep, which may be harder to address without the leverage of a competitive environment. The government must implement robust contract management, including detailed performance metrics, regular reviews, and strong communication channels, to ensure accountability and mitigate risks associated with the absence of competition.

Given the contract's duration of 805 days (approximately 2.2 years), what are the implications for long-term planning and budget allocation within the Air Force?

A contract duration of 805 days signifies a significant, multi-year commitment by the Air Force, requiring careful long-term planning and budget allocation. This duration suggests that the services provided are not short-term or ad-hoc but are integral to ongoing operations, research, or development efforts. The Air Force must ensure that sufficient funds are programmed and appropriated across the relevant fiscal years to cover the anticipated costs. This commitment also implies a degree of stability in the requirement, allowing for more predictable resource management. However, it also means that alternative solutions or changes in strategic direction might be more difficult to implement mid-contract without incurring significant costs or disruption.

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

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Sierra Nevada Corporation

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: $128,867,093

Exercised Options: $83,753,170

Current Obligation: $80,197,009

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 42

Total Subaward Amount: $10,930,062

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