DoD awards $26.7M for C2BMC training system development, with a 10-year contract duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,680,322 ($26.7M)

Contractor: Sonalysts Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-01-03

End Date: 2030-02-03

Contract Duration: 3,684 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: DEVELOPMENT OF MISSION SPECIFIC VENDOR PLUG-IN (MSVP) STAND-ALONE TRAINING SYSTEM FOR THE COMMAND, CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION (C2BMC) SYSTEM

Place of Performance

Location: WATERFORD, NEW LONDON County, CONNECTICUT, 06385

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.7 million to SONALYSTS INC for work described as: DEVELOPMENT OF MISSION SPECIFIC VENDOR PLUG-IN (MSVP) STAND-ALONE TRAINING SYSTEM FOR THE COMMAND, CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION (C2BMC) SYSTEM Key points: 1. Contract focuses on R&D for a specialized training system, indicating a need for advanced simulation capabilities. 2. The contract's long duration suggests a sustained requirement for system updates and ongoing training support. 3. Competition was initially excluded for sources, but later opened to full and open competition, raising questions about initial justification. 4. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type may lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored. 5. The Missile Defense Agency is the primary recipient, highlighting the strategic importance of the C2BMC system. 6. The contract value is substantial, reflecting the complexity and criticality of the C2BMC system's training needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $26.7 million over approximately 10 years for a specialized training system appears reasonable given the complexity of the C2BMC system. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure introduces inherent risk for cost control. Benchmarking against similar R&D training system development contracts would provide a clearer picture of value for money, but such data is not readily available. The long duration could also lead to cost escalation if not managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was initially awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which suggests a specific justification was made to limit initial competition. However, it later transitioned to full and open competition. The exact number of bidders and the rationale for the initial exclusion are not detailed, making it difficult to fully assess the competitive landscape and its impact on price discovery. The transition to open competition is a positive sign for future price optimization.

Taxpayer Impact: The initial exclusion of sources, even if later rectified, may have limited the opportunity for taxpayers to benefit from the widest possible range of competitive pricing. The eventual open competition is beneficial for ensuring a more robust market response and potentially better value.

Public Impact

Personnel involved in the Command, Control, Battle Management, and Communication (C2BMC) system will benefit from enhanced, mission-specific training. The development of a stand-alone training system aims to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of C2BMC system operations. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within Department of Defense facilities where C2BMC operations are managed. Workforce implications include the need for skilled personnel to develop, maintain, and utilize the training system, potentially creating specialized roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The CPFF contract type can incentivize contractor costs to increase, requiring stringent oversight.
The long contract duration (10 years) increases the risk of scope creep and potential cost overruns if not managed proactively.
The initial exclusion of sources, even if later opened, warrants scrutiny regarding the justification and potential impact on competition.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the training system development.

Positive Signals

The contract addresses a critical need for specialized training for a vital defense system (C2BMC).
The transition to full and open competition indicates a commitment to leveraging market forces for better outcomes.
The long-term nature of the contract suggests a strategic investment in maintaining operational readiness.
SONALYSTS INC has a track record in defense contracting, potentially bringing relevant expertise.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on specialized training systems for complex defense applications. The market for defense simulation and training systems is significant, driven by the need for realistic and cost-effective training solutions. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar R&D training system developments are difficult to ascertain without more specific details on system complexity and scope. The Missile Defense Agency's investment aligns with broader trends in modernizing military training through technology.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this contract. This suggests the focus was on specialized capabilities rather than small business inclusion. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this specific contract, as it appears to be awarded to a larger entity based on specific technical requirements.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense and the Missile Defense Agency. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure necessitates robust financial oversight to monitor expenditures and prevent cost overruns. Accountability measures would likely involve regular performance reviews, milestone tracking, and adherence to contractual terms. Transparency may be limited due to the classified nature of some defense systems, but contract awards and basic details are typically publicly available through federal procurement databases.

Related Government Programs

Missile Defense Systems
Command and Control Systems
Military Training and Simulation
Research and Development Contracts
Department of Defense IT Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF contract type.
Long contract duration increases risk of scope creep and cost escalation.
Initial exclusion of sources warrants scrutiny regarding competition.
Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders effectiveness assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.7 million to SONALYSTS INC. DEVELOPMENT OF MISSION SPECIFIC VENDOR PLUG-IN (MSVP) STAND-ALONE TRAINING SYSTEM FOR THE COMMAND, CONTROL, BATTLE MANAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATION (C2BMC) SYSTEM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SONALYSTS INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Missile Defense Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-01-03. End: 2030-02-03.

What is the specific justification for the initial exclusion of sources in this contract, and what was the impact on the final award?

The contract was initially awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This designation typically implies that a justification was made to limit the pool of potential offerors, perhaps due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent needs. However, the transition to 'Full and Open Competition' later suggests that the initial limitations were either overcome or deemed unnecessary. Without the specific justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), it's impossible to definitively state the reasons or the precise impact on the final award. This could have potentially limited the number of bidders initially, possibly leading to a higher price than if full and open competition had been pursued from the outset. The subsequent opening to full competition is a positive step towards ensuring broader market participation and potentially better price discovery.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type compare to other pricing structures for R&D training systems in terms of cost control and risk?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is common in research and development where the scope of work can be uncertain. It allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. While it facilitates innovation and allows for flexibility, it carries a higher risk of cost overruns for the government compared to fixed-price contracts. The contractor has less incentive to control costs, as their profit is fixed. For R&D training systems, a CPFF structure might be chosen if the technical requirements are not fully defined at the outset. However, it necessitates rigorous government oversight of costs and performance to mitigate risks. Fixed-price contracts, conversely, offer better cost certainty but may stifle innovation or lead to contractors cutting corners if the scope is not well-defined.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of the development of this mission-specific vendor plug-in (MSVP) stand-alone training system?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) for the development of the MSVP stand-alone training system. Typically, for R&D and system development contracts, KPIs would focus on aspects such as adherence to technical specifications, system functionality and reliability, user acceptance testing results, training effectiveness metrics (e.g., improved operator proficiency), on-time delivery of milestones, and budget adherence. Given the CPFF nature of the contract, close monitoring of cost efficiency alongside technical progress would also be crucial. Without these specific KPIs, assessing the contractor's performance and the ultimate value derived from the $26.7 million investment is challenging.

What is the historical spending trend for the C2BMC system's training and development, and how does this contract fit within that pattern?

Historical spending data for the C2BMC system's training and development is not provided in the current data extract. However, the C2BMC system is a critical component of the U.S. missile defense architecture, implying significant and sustained investment over its lifecycle. This $26.7 million contract, spanning approximately 10 years, suggests a long-term commitment to enhancing the training capabilities for this complex system. It likely represents a specific initiative within a broader, ongoing program of work for C2BMC sustainment and modernization. To understand the pattern, one would need to analyze past contracts related to C2BMC development, sustainment, and training, looking at total obligated amounts, contract types, and durations over time.

What is the track record of SONALYSTS INC in developing similar training systems for complex defense applications?

SONALYSTS INC has a history of providing technical services and support to the U.S. military, including areas related to command, control, and intelligence systems. While specific details on their track record for developing stand-alone training systems for complex defense applications like C2BMC are not fully elaborated in the provided data, their involvement in defense contracts suggests they possess relevant expertise. A deeper dive into their contract history, past performance evaluations, and specific project portfolios would be necessary to comprehensively assess their capabilities and success rate in delivering similar training solutions. Their experience likely includes software development, system integration, and potentially simulation technologies relevant to this contract.

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 › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 215 PARKWAY N, WATERFORD, CT, 06385

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $41,386,774

Exercised Options: $41,386,774

Current Obligation: $26,680,322

Actual Outlays: $8,713,185

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 7

Total Subaward Amount: $1,936,015

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline