DoD's $94.4M 'Big Safari' contract awarded to Sierra Nevada Company, LLC, with no competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $94,416,949 ($94.4M)

Contractor: Sierra Nevada Company, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-05-30

End Date: 2021-11-30

Contract Duration: 915 days

Daily Burn Rate: $103.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: BIG SAFARI

Place of Performance

Location: ENGLEWOOD, DENVER County, COLORADO, 80112

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $94.4 million to SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC for work described as: BIG SAFARI Key points: 1. The contract's value of $94.4 million represents a significant investment in specialized technical services. 2. The absence of competition raises questions about potential overpricing and limited value for money. 3. The 'NOT COMPETED' award type is a key risk indicator, suggesting potential for reduced market pressure. 4. Performance context is limited due to the lack of competitive benchmarking. 5. This contract falls within the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' sector. 6. The firm fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the lack of competition may undermine this. 7. The duration of 915 days indicates a substantial, long-term requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the sole-source award. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if Sierra Nevada Company, LLC's pricing reflects fair market value. The $94.4 million expenditure for 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' requires further scrutiny to ensure it aligns with industry standards and delivers optimal value for the Department of Defense. The lack of comparative data from other bidders prevents a robust assessment of cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source procurement method, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities or when urgency dictates a direct award. The absence of a competitive bidding process means that the Department of Defense did not benefit from the price discovery and innovation that typically arise from a robust competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without multiple bids, there is a reduced incentive for the contractor to offer the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, which receives specialized technical services under the 'Big Safari' program. The services delivered are categorized under 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services', indicating a broad scope of support. The geographic impact is primarily within the operational sphere of the Department of the Air Force, with potential national security implications. Workforce implications are likely concentrated within Sierra Nevada Company, LLC, and its specialized technical teams.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Sole-source awards can limit innovation by excluding potential new entrants.
Transparency is reduced without a competitive bidding process.
Performance metrics and value for money are harder to assess without benchmarks.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Sierra Nevada Company, LLC is a known entity, potentially offering specialized expertise.
The contract duration suggests a sustained need for the services provided.

Sector Analysis

The 'Big Safari' program, under which this contract was awarded, is known for its focus on rapid development and acquisition of specialized intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities for the Air Force. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector, which is a significant component of federal spending. The market for such specialized technical services is often characterized by a limited number of highly skilled contractors, but the absence of competition here is notable. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the services rendered.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The award to a single, likely large, prime contractor may limit opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific project, potentially impacting the broader small business ecosystem in this specialized technical services area.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of the Air Force's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the contract terms, particularly the firm fixed-price structure. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Programs
Specialized Technical Services
Department of Defense Acquisition Programs
Air Force Research and Development

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for inflated pricing
Limited transparency
Absence of value-for-money benchmarking

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $94.4 million to SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC. 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 $94.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-05-30. End: 2021-11-30.

What specific technical services were provided under the 'BIG SAFARI' contract?

The data provided categorizes this contract under 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' (NAICS code 541990). While the specific nature of the services is not detailed, the 'BIG SAFARI' program is historically associated with the Air Force's rapid acquisition of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. This could encompass a wide range of activities, including system development, integration, testing, modification, and sustainment of specialized airborne platforms and associated technologies. The lack of detailed service descriptions in the provided data makes a precise definition impossible, but it points towards highly specialized, non-standard technical support critical to national defense operations.

How does the $94.4 million contract value compare to similar 'BIG SAFARI' program contracts?

Without access to a comprehensive database of all 'BIG SAFARI' program contracts and their specific service scopes, a direct comparison of the $94.4 million value is difficult. However, the 'BIG SAFARI' program is known for procuring high-value, specialized systems and services, often involving significant research, development, and integration efforts. Contracts within this program can range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the complexity and duration of the requirement. The $94.4 million figure suggests a substantial, but not necessarily outlier, investment within the context of this specific, often classified or sensitive, Air Force initiative. Further analysis would require comparing contracts with identical or highly similar service descriptions and durations.

What are the primary risks associated with a 'NOT COMPETED' sole-source award of this magnitude?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award of $94.4 million are significant. Firstly, there is a heightened risk of paying a non-competitive price, potentially exceeding fair market value, as there was no opportunity for other vendors to bid and drive down costs. Secondly, the government misses out on potential innovations and alternative solutions that a competitive process might have uncovered. Thirdly, transparency and public trust can be eroded, as sole-source awards can be perceived as lacking fairness or potentially favoring specific contractors without clear justification. Lastly, the lack of competition can reduce the incentive for the awarded contractor to perform at peak efficiency and cost-effectiveness throughout the contract's lifecycle.

What is the track record of Sierra Nevada Company, LLC in delivering services for the Department of Defense?

Sierra Nevada Company, LLC (SNC) has a substantial track record with the Department of Defense, particularly in areas related to aerospace, defense electronics, and specialized mission systems. They are known for their work on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms, electronic warfare systems, and communication technologies. SNC has been a significant player in various defense programs, often involved in complex integration and development projects. While this specific 'BIG SAFARI' contract was sole-sourced, SNC's broader history suggests they possess the technical capabilities and experience often sought by the DoD for demanding and specialized requirements. A detailed review of their past performance on similar contracts would provide further insight.

How does the firm fixed-price contract type mitigate risks in a sole-source scenario?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is designed to shift cost risk from the government to the contractor. In a sole-source scenario like this 'BIG SAFARI' contract, an FFP agreement means that Sierra Nevada Company, LLC is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This provides the government with cost certainty, preventing cost overruns beyond the $94.4 million ceiling. However, while FFP mitigates cost overrun risk for the government, it does not inherently guarantee the best value or prevent potentially inflated pricing in the absence of competition. The contractor bears the risk of underestimating costs, but the initial price negotiation is critical in a sole-source context.

What are the implications of the contract's end date (November 30, 2021) given its start date (May 30, 2019)?

The contract spanned a period of approximately 2 years and 6 months (915 days). The end date of November 30, 2021, indicates that the services have concluded. For the Department of Defense, this means the specific requirement fulfilled by this contract is either completed, has transitioned to a new contract vehicle, or is no longer needed. The duration suggests a significant project or a series of related tasks rather than a short-term engagement. Analyzing whether the objectives were met within this timeframe and budget, especially given the sole-source nature, would be a key post-performance assessment point for the agency.

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: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

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: $101,833,936

Exercised Options: $101,833,936

Current Obligation: $94,416,949

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 41

Total Subaward Amount: $30,158,846

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