DoD's $111M Ballistic Missile Defense Contract with CSC Raises Concerns Over Competition and Value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $110,973,368 ($111.0M)

Contractor: Csra LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-09-01

End Date: 2010-10-01

Contract Duration: 3,682 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200012!9700!000286!ZD60 !BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORG. !HQ000600C0009 !A!*!* !20000901!20000901!043991108!009581091!009581091!N!52939!COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION !3160 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE !FALLS CHURCH !VA!22042!03000!013!51!ARLINGTON !ARLINGTON !VIRGINIA !0001!+000002922500!N!N!000000000000!AD93!RDTE/OTHER DEFENSE-ADV TECH DEV !S1 !SERVICES !1CAA!BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYS !8731!1!*!*!*!B!A!*!D !N!U!1!001!N!1G!Z!Y!Z!* !* !N!C!*!A!A!A!A!A!A!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: FALLS CHURCH, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22042

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $111.0 million to CSRA LLC for work described as: 200012!9700!000286!ZD60 !BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORG. !HQ000600C0009 !A!*!* !20000901!20000901!043991108!009581091!009581091!N!52939!COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION !3160 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE !FALLS CHURCH !VA!22042!03000!013!51!ARLINGTON !ARL… Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) for Ballistic Missile Defense Systems totaled $110,973,368. 2. Awarded as a 'NOT COMPETED' definitive contract, the lack of competition raises questions about price discovery and potential overspending. 3. The contract's duration of over 10 years (3682 days) suggests a long-term need, but the pricing structure and oversight require scrutiny. 4. The sector is Defense Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDTE), a critical area for national security.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, combined with a lack of competition, makes a direct pricing assessment difficult. Without benchmarks from competitive bids, it's hard to determine if the $111M represents fair value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under a 'NOT COMPETED' basis, indicating limited or no competition. This significantly impacts price discovery, as there was no market pressure to drive down costs. The sole source nature suggests potential reliance on a single vendor without exploring alternatives.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competitive bidding may have resulted in taxpayers paying a premium for the services rendered, as the government did not leverage market forces to secure the best possible price.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may have overpaid due to the absence of a competitive bidding process. The long-term nature of the contract raises questions about the government's ability to adapt to evolving technological needs in missile defense. The reliance on a single contractor for over a decade could stifle innovation and limit the government's access to a broader range of solutions. National security could be indirectly impacted if the lack of competition leads to suboptimal technological advancements or cost inefficiencies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Cost-plus contract type
Long contract duration
Potential for cost overruns

Positive Signals

Critical national security program
Established contractor with relevant experience

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDTE) sector, specifically for Ballistic Missile Defense Systems. Spending in this area is crucial for national security but often involves complex, long-term projects with high costs and limited competition.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication in the provided data whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors or partners in this contract. Further investigation would be needed to assess small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' award status suggests that standard competitive oversight processes may have been bypassed. The long duration of the contract necessitates robust oversight to ensure performance, cost control, and alignment with evolving defense needs.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus contract type
Long contract duration (over 10 years)
Lack of transparency in pricing
Potential for contractor lock-in
Limited oversight evidence

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $111.0 million to CSRA LLC. 200012!9700!000286!ZD60 !BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORG. !HQ000600C0009 !A!*!* !20000901!20000901!043991108!009581091!009581091!N!52939!COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION !3160 FAIRVIEW PARK DRIVE !FALLS CHURCH !VA!22042!03000!013!51!ARLINGTON !ARLINGTON !VIRGINIA !0001!+000002922500!N!N!000000000000!AD93!RDTE/OTHER DEFENSE-ADV TECH DEV !S1 !SERVICES !1CAA!BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYS !8731!1!*!*!*!B!A!*!D !N!U!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CSRA LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $111.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-09-01. End: 2010-10-01.

What specific justifications were provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were these justifications thoroughly vetted?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. Typically, sole-source awards require detailed justification, such as the existence of only one responsible source, urgent and compelling needs, or specific national security requirements. A thorough vetting process would involve independent review of these justifications to ensure they are valid and that alternatives were genuinely explored before resorting to a non-competitive award.

How was the 'fixed fee' in the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract determined, and is it reasonable given the lack of competitive benchmarks?

Determining a reasonable fixed fee for a CPFF contract without competition is challenging. It often relies on historical data from similar (though perhaps not identical) contracts, contractor cost proposals, and negotiation. Without competitive bids, there's a risk the fee might not reflect the most efficient cost structure achievable in a competitive market. Independent cost analysis would be crucial.

What mechanisms were in place to ensure cost efficiency and performance throughout the 10-year contract duration, especially given the CPFF structure?

With a CPFF contract and a long duration, robust oversight is critical. This would include regular performance reviews, audits of contractor costs, and potentially incentive structures (though not explicitly stated here) to encourage efficiency. The government would need to actively manage the contract, ensuring deliverables meet requirements and that costs remain within reasonable bounds, despite the lack of initial competitive pressure.

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: 3170 FAIRVIEW PARK DR, FALLS CHURCH, VA, 22042

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline