DoD's $30M 'BIG SAFARI' contract to Sierra Nevada Company, LLC for technical services awarded via sole-source vehicle

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,287,123 ($30.3M)

Contractor: Sierra Nevada Company, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-09-15

End Date: 2026-12-04

Contract Duration: 445 days

Daily Burn Rate: $68.1K/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: DAYTON, GREENE County, OHIO, 45433

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $30.3 million to SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC for work described as: BIG SAFARI Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 2. The sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially impacting price efficiency. 3. A high contract value suggests significant scope, requiring robust oversight. 4. The duration of 445 days indicates a medium-term project. 5. The contract falls under 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,' a broad category. 6. The award was a delivery order under a previously established contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $30.2 million contract is challenging without specific deliverables. However, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure inherently carries higher risk for the government compared to fixed-price contracts, as costs can escalate. The absence of competition further complicates a direct value assessment, as there's no market benchmark from competing bids. Without detailed performance metrics and cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a sole-source delivery order, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when urgency precludes a full and open competition. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms that arise from multiple bids, potentially leading to a higher price than if it had been competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may face higher costs due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government's negotiating position is weakened without alternative offers.

Public Impact

The Department of the Air Force is the primary beneficiary, receiving specialized technical services. The contract supports advanced technology development and integration for national security objectives. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the Department of Defense's operational areas. Workforce implications may include specialized technical roles within Sierra Nevada Company, LLC.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure can incentivize cost overruns.
Broad service category makes performance monitoring critical.
Lack of public detail on specific services delivered.

Positive Signals

Award to an established contractor (Sierra Nevada Company, LLC) suggests potential for reliable execution.
Delivery order mechanism implies it's part of a larger, potentially vetted, framework.
Fixed fee component provides some cost certainty for a portion of the contract.
Specific end date provides a defined period for service delivery.

Sector Analysis

The 'BIG SAFARI' program, under which this contract falls, is known for rapidly developing and fielding capabilities for the Air Force. This specific contract for 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' likely supports a niche or specialized technological requirement. The overall market for such services within the defense sector is substantial, with numerous companies offering advanced engineering, integration, and technical support. Benchmarking requires comparing against similar sole-source awards for specialized defense technology.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Sierra Nevada Company, LLC is a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this specific delivery order. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor actively pursues small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. As a sole-source award, scrutiny may be higher to ensure fair pricing and necessity. Transparency is limited by the nature of sole-source procurements and the classification of defense-related services. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

BIG SAFARI Program
Department of the Air Force Contracts
Specialized Technical Services
Sole-Source Defense Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing
Broad service category (NAICS 541990)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $30.3 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 $30.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-15. End: 2026-12-04.

What is the track record of Sierra Nevada Company, LLC with the Department of Defense, particularly on similar sole-source contracts?

Sierra Nevada Company, LLC (SNC) has a significant history of contracting with the Department of Defense, including the Air Force. They are known for their work in various aerospace and defense technologies, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, electronic warfare, and space systems. While specific details on their sole-source contracts are often sensitive, SNC's overall performance record with the DoD is generally considered strong, marked by the successful delivery of complex systems. However, the nature of sole-source awards means that direct comparisons of performance on identical services are difficult, and oversight is crucial to ensure continued value and adherence to contract terms.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other contract types used for similar technical services?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure is common for research and development or complex services where the scope is not fully defined at the outset, making fixed-price contracts impractical. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This contrasts with fixed-price contracts, where the price is set regardless of actual costs, offering greater cost certainty to the buyer but potentially higher risk for the contractor. Other contract types like Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) or Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) introduce performance incentives. CPFF is generally considered riskier for the government than fixed-price options because it provides less incentive for the contractor to control costs, as their fee is fixed regardless of the final cost.

What are the primary risks associated with sole-source awards for advanced technical services like those potentially covered by 'BIG SAFARI'?

The primary risks associated with sole-source awards for advanced technical services are related to cost and competition. Without competitive bidding, there is a reduced incentive for the contractor to offer the lowest possible price, potentially leading to inflated costs for the government. Furthermore, the government may not have access to the full range of innovative solutions available in the market if other capable vendors are not considered. There's also a risk of contractor complacency or reduced urgency if they are the sole provider. Robust justification for the sole-source award and stringent oversight are critical to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives fair value and the best available technology.

Can we benchmark the $30.2 million value against other 'BIG SAFARI' contracts or similar technical service procurements?

Benchmarking the $30.2 million value of this 'BIG SAFARI' delivery order requires comparing it to similar contracts within the program or for comparable advanced technical services. The 'BIG SAFARI' program itself encompasses a wide range of rapid acquisition efforts, so contract values can vary significantly based on scope and complexity. Generally, contracts in the tens of millions for specialized defense technology development and integration are not uncommon. However, without knowing the specific technical requirements, deliverables, and duration of this particular order, a precise benchmark is difficult. Comparing it to other sole-source, CPFF contracts for similar technical domains within the DoD would provide the most relevant context, though such data is often not publicly available in detail.

What are the potential implications of the 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' NAICS code (541990) for contract oversight?

The NAICS code 541990, 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,' is a broad category that encompasses a wide array of activities not classified elsewhere. This breadth can present challenges for contract oversight. It means the specific services rendered under this contract could range from highly specialized scientific research to complex engineering analysis or technical consulting. Effective oversight requires a deep understanding of the specific tasks being performed, clear performance metrics tailored to those tasks, and expertise within the contracting officer's representative (COR) team to validate the quality and necessity of the work. The generality of the code necessitates robust documentation and communication between the government and the contractor to ensure alignment and accountability.

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: $30,287,123

Exercised Options: $30,287,123

Current Obligation: $30,287,123

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $4,548,411

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA862021G4009

IDV Type: BOA

Timeline