DoD R&E Support Contract Awarded to American Systems Corp for $74.6M, Spanning 4 Years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $74,574,326 ($74.6M)

Contractor: American Systems Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-02-14

End Date: 2026-01-31

Contract Duration: 1,447 days

Daily Burn Rate: $51.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: THIS IS FOR OPERATIONAL PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT FOR THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENTAL TEST EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENTS OFFICE.

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA CITY County, VIRGINIA, 22350

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $74.6 million to AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION for work described as: THIS IS FOR OPERATIONAL PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT FOR THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENTAL TEST EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENTS OFFICE. Key points: 1. Contract provides essential research and engineering support for critical DoD developmental test and evaluation. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs by defining a set payment regardless of effort. 3. Competition was conducted after exclusion of sources, suggesting specific justifications for vendor selection. 4. The contract duration of nearly four years indicates a long-term need for these specialized services. 5. This award falls within the R&D sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. 6. The value of the contract is substantial, reflecting the complexity and importance of the support required.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $74.6 million over approximately four years suggests a significant investment in specialized R&D support. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for high-level defense research and engineering support is challenging without more specific service details. However, the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally favorable for the government in managing cost certainty, provided the scope is well-defined. The absence of specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns makes a precise value-for-money assessment difficult, but the duration and nature of the support imply a recognized need and potentially competitive pricing for specialized expertise.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the initial solicitation may have been open, specific sources were later excluded, or the competition was limited to a pre-selected group of qualified vendors. The exact number of bidders and the rationale for excluding other sources are not detailed, which limits a full assessment of the competitive landscape. This procurement method can sometimes lead to less aggressive pricing compared to broad open competition if the pool of bidders is restricted.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the potentially lower prices that could arise from a wider, more inclusive bidding process. The justification for excluding sources needs to be robust to ensure fair value.

Public Impact

The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering benefits from crucial support in developmental testing and evaluation. Services delivered include research, engineering, and assessment capabilities vital for defense technology advancement. The geographic impact is primarily within the Washington Headquarters Services, supporting high-level DoD functions. Workforce implications include the employment of specialized engineers and research professionals within American Systems Corporation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential price inflation and reduced innovation.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess contractor efficiency and effectiveness.
The 'exclusion of sources' justification requires scrutiny to ensure it was necessary and fair.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing need for critical R&D support.
Award to a single contractor implies specialized capabilities meeting specific DoD requirements.

Sector Analysis

This contract operates within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541715, which covers R&D in the physical, engineering, and life sciences. This sector is characterized by high specialization, significant intellectual property, and often long development cycles. The market size for defense R&D support services is substantial, driven by national security imperatives. This contract fits within the broader ecosystem of defense contractors providing essential scientific and technical expertise to government agencies, complementing internal government capabilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits for the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The primary contractor, American Systems Corporation, is likely a mid-to-large-sized business given the contract value. Opportunities for small businesses would typically arise through subcontracting opportunities offered by the prime contractor, which are not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of Defense's established procurement and contract management regulations. The Washington Headquarters Services (WHS) would likely be the primary administrative and oversight body. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Specific accountability measures would be detailed in the contract's statement of work and performance clauses. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Programs
Test and Evaluation Support Services
Engineering and Technical Services Contracts
Defense Science and Technology Strategy

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price and innovation.
Potential for scope creep in R&D contracts.
Personnel retention challenges in specialized fields.
Need for robust government oversight to ensure quality.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $74.6 million to AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION. THIS IS FOR OPERATIONAL PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT FOR THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENTAL TEST EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENTS OFFICE.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Washington Headquarters Services).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $74.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-02-14. End: 2026-01-31.

What is the track record of American Systems Corporation in performing similar R&D support contracts for the Department of Defense?

American Systems Corporation has a history of supporting government agencies, including the Department of Defense, with a range of services that often include technical, engineering, and professional support. While specific details on their performance on contracts directly mirroring this one (i.e., high-level R&D support for the Under Secretary of Defense for R&E) would require deeper analysis of past performance reviews and contract histories, their presence in the federal contracting space suggests established capabilities. Their portfolio often includes areas like systems engineering, test and evaluation, and program management support. A thorough review would involve examining past performance evaluations (CPARS), any past disputes or contract modifications, and the scale and complexity of previously awarded contracts to ascertain their suitability and reliability for this significant $74.6 million award.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar R&D support services procured by the DoD?

A direct comparison of pricing for this $74.6 million contract is difficult without detailed cost breakdowns and specific service benchmarks. However, the contract type is Firm Fixed Price (FFP), which generally aims to provide cost certainty for the government. The competition method, 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' suggests a potentially limited pool of bidders compared to a truly open competition, which could influence pricing. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable contracts for similar R&D support services, considering factors like contract duration, scope of work complexity, required expertise levels, and the specific agency or sub-agency being supported. Without such comparable data, assessing whether the pricing represents good value for money is speculative, though the FFP structure is a positive indicator for cost control.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks for this contract include potential scope creep if the R&D requirements are not precisely defined, challenges in retaining specialized personnel due to the competitive nature of R&D talent, and the risk that the limited competition might not yield the best possible pricing or innovative solutions. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust contract management by the Washington Headquarters Services, clear definition and adherence to the Statement of Work (SOW), performance monitoring, and potentially incentive structures within the FFP framework. The long duration also presents a risk of evolving technological needs not being fully met by the initial contract scope. The 'exclusion of sources' aspect requires careful oversight to ensure it doesn't mask a lack of true competition.

How effective is the current contract structure in ensuring the delivery of high-quality R&D support for the DoD?

The effectiveness of the contract structure hinges on several factors. The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) nature incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently, but it can also disincentivize going beyond the defined scope, potentially limiting proactive problem-solving. The duration of nearly four years suggests a stable, long-term need, allowing for deeper integration and understanding of DoD's R&D objectives. However, the effectiveness in delivering *high-quality* support is heavily dependent on the clarity of the Statement of Work, the contractor's technical expertise, and the government's oversight capabilities. The limited competition ('after exclusion of sources') raises a flag regarding whether the structure inherently promotes the highest quality through maximum competitive pressure. Robust performance metrics and active government oversight are crucial for ensuring quality delivery.

What are the historical spending patterns for R&D support services within the Under Secretary of Defense for R&E office?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for R&D support services within the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD R&E) office is crucial for context. This $74.6 million contract represents a significant, multi-year investment. Historical data would reveal whether this level of spending is typical for this office, if it represents an increase or decrease in R&D support procurement, and the types of services previously contracted. Understanding trends in spending—whether towards more in-house capabilities or increased reliance on external contractors, and shifts in competition levels—provides insight into the strategic direction and resource allocation within the USD R&E. Without access to specific historical spending data for this office, it's difficult to definitively characterize this contract's place within broader spending trends, but its value suggests a sustained and important requirement.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › General Science and Technology R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: HQ003421R0145

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 14151 PARK MEADOW DR STE 500, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $94,611,143

Exercised Options: $75,190,202

Current Obligation: $74,574,326

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 25

Total Subaward Amount: $13,567,610

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HQ003421D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline