DoD's $79M 'Big Safari' contract awarded to Sierra Nevada Company, LLC for technical services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $79,243,053 ($79.2M)

Contractor: Sierra Nevada Company, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-11-30

End Date: 2026-10-31

Contract Duration: 1,066 days

Daily Burn Rate: $74.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: BIG SAFARI

Place of Performance

Location: ENGLEWOOD, DENVER County, COLORADO, 80112

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $79.2 million to SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC for work described as: BIG SAFARI Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, indicating potential for cost overruns if not managed closely. 2. The 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' NAICS code suggests a broad scope of work. 3. Awarded as 'Not Competed', raising questions about the justification for avoiding a competitive bidding process. 4. The contract duration of 1066 days (approx. 3 years) indicates a significant, long-term commitment. 5. The contract is not set aside for small businesses, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms. 6. The base value of $74.3M suggests a substantial investment in specialized technical support.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without a detailed understanding of the 'Big Safari' program's specific technical requirements. However, the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, combined with a 'not competed' award, warrants scrutiny. The base value of over $74 million for approximately three years of service suggests a significant investment. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if this represents a fair market price or if alternative solutions could have been procured at a lower cost.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'not competed' basis, meaning a full and open competition was not conducted. The specific justification for this sole-source award is not provided in the data. Typically, sole-source awards are made when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery and innovation that typically arises from multiple bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible value due to the absence of competitive pressure, which usually drives down prices and encourages efficiency.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Air Force and potentially other entities within the Department of Defense requiring specialized technical services. The contract supports 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services', implying a wide range of potential applications from research and development to operational support. The geographic impact is centered in Colorado, where Sierra Nevada Company, LLC is located, but the services could support operations nationwide or globally. The contract may impact a specialized workforce within the aerospace and defense sector, requiring highly skilled technical professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced innovation.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can incentivize contractors to increase costs if not closely monitored.
The broad NAICS code makes it difficult to assess the specific value and necessity of the services procured.

Positive Signals

Award to an established contractor like Sierra Nevada Company, LLC may indicate a reliance on proven expertise for critical needs.
The long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing requirement that the contractor is equipped to handle.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense sector is characterized by complex, high-value contracts often involving specialized technical services. The 'Big Safari' program, under which this contract falls, is known for its focus on rapid development and fielding of advanced capabilities for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. Spending in this area is substantial, driven by national security imperatives. This contract fits within the broader category of professional, scientific, and technical services supporting advanced defense systems, where innovation and specialized knowledge are paramount.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates no indication of subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, this award does not directly contribute to the small business contracting goals of the government. The absence of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for smaller, specialized firms to compete for this particular contract were not pursued.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. The 'Big Safari' program itself often has dedicated oversight mechanisms due to its sensitive nature. Transparency regarding the specific services rendered and the justification for the sole-source award would be key areas for assessment. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Platforms
Advanced Technology Development
Aerospace Engineering Services
Department of Defense Research and Development

Risk Flags

Sole-source award justification required.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee requires robust cost oversight.
Broad NAICS code necessitates clear performance metrics.
Long contract duration requires careful management.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $79.2 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 $79.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-11-30. End: 2026-10-31.

What specific technical services are encompassed by the 'Big Safari' program and this contract?

The 'Big Safari' program is an Air Force initiative focused on the rapid acquisition and development of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. While the specific services under this $79 million contract are not detailed, they likely involve a broad spectrum of technical support. This could include systems engineering, software development, integration of new technologies onto airborne platforms, testing and evaluation, and lifecycle support for ISR systems. Given the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' NAICS code, the scope is intentionally broad, suggesting support for diverse and evolving technological needs within the ISR domain.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED', classifying it as a sole-source award. The specific justification for this determination is not included. Typically, sole-source awards are made under circumstances such as when only one responsible source can provide the required services, there is a compelling urgency, or the services are highly specialized and unique to a particular contractor. Without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition), it is impossible to definitively state why a competitive process was bypassed for this significant contract.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type impact value for money?

A Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract type means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or involves significant uncertainty, making it difficult to estimate costs accurately upfront. While CPFF can facilitate the acquisition of complex or novel services, it carries inherent risks for the government. If not managed diligently, it can lead to cost overruns as the contractor may have less incentive to control expenses compared to fixed-price contracts. Effective oversight, robust cost accounting, and clear performance metrics are crucial to ensure value for money under a CPFF arrangement.

What is the historical spending pattern for the 'Big Safari' program or similar technical services contracts?

Historical spending data for the 'Big Safari' program specifically is not provided. However, the Department of Defense, particularly the Air Force, consistently invests billions annually in intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities and related technical services. Contracts for advanced aerospace and technical support often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, reflecting the complexity and criticality of these systems. The $79 million awarded here is substantial but falls within the typical range for major defense acquisition programs requiring specialized engineering and technical expertise over multi-year periods. Analyzing past awards under 'Big Safari' or similar ISR development programs would reveal trends in contractor selection, contract types, and overall investment levels.

What are the potential risks associated with a $79 million contract awarded without competition?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude include: 1) Lack of Price Competition: Without competing bids, the government may pay a higher price than necessary, as market forces driving down costs are absent. 2) Reduced Innovation: Contractors may have less incentive to innovate or offer cost-saving solutions when they are guaranteed the contract regardless of competitive alternatives. 3) Potential for Scope Creep: The flexibility inherent in some sole-source justifications could allow for expansion of the contract's scope without adequate justification or pricing adjustments. 4) Contractor Performance Dependence: The government becomes heavily reliant on the single awarded contractor, making it difficult to switch providers if performance issues arise. 5) Transparency Concerns: The lack of a competitive process can sometimes obscure the true necessity and value of the procured services.

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 PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12500 BELFORD AVE, ENGLEWOOD, CO, 80112

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: $79,243,053

Exercised Options: $79,243,053

Current Obligation: $79,243,053

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 197

Total Subaward Amount: $32,198,277

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA862021G4009

IDV Type: BOA

Timeline