DoD awards $88.7M for electrical signal instruments, with General Dynamics Mission Systems as sole source

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $88,665,568 ($88.7M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-08-01

End Date: 2020-04-01

Contract Duration: 4,261 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TI-08 LONG LEAD MATERIAL

Place of Performance

Location: MANASSAS, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 20110

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $88.7 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: TI-08 LONG LEAD MATERIAL Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. Long duration of over 11 years suggests a critical, ongoing need. 3. Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize higher costs. 4. No small business set-aside indicates potential for large prime contractor. 5. Contract falls under instrument manufacturing for measuring and testing electricity and electrical signals. 6. Significant contract value suggests a substantial role in defense operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $88.7 million over more than a decade indicates a substantial investment. Without comparable sole-source contracts for similar specialized instrumentation, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for R&D or uncertain scope, can lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not carefully managed. Benchmarking against market rates for similar specialized electrical testing equipment is difficult due to the unique nature and sole-source award.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning competition was not sought. This typically occurs when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. The lack of competition means that price discovery through a bidding process was bypassed, potentially leading to higher costs for the government than if multiple vendors had competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government did not benefit from the cost-saving pressures that typically arise from a competitive procurement process.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense is the primary beneficiary, receiving specialized instrumentation. Services delivered include the provision of instruments for measuring and testing electrical signals. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within DoD facilities and operations. Workforce implications may involve specialized technicians and engineers for operating and maintaining the equipment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense sector, specifically related to electronic instrumentation and testing equipment. The market for such specialized equipment is often characterized by high barriers to entry due to technical expertise and security requirements. General Dynamics Mission Systems is a major player in defense electronics, and this contract represents a significant award within that niche. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the instrumentation's capabilities.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the prime contractor, General Dynamics Mission Systems, will likely perform the majority of the work. The absence of small business participation could limit opportunities for smaller firms in this specialized area.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The definitive contract structure implies a level of accountability for General Dynamics Mission Systems to deliver the specified instrumentation. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award, but contract modifications and performance reports would be subject to internal DoD oversight.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

defense, department-of-defense, general-dynamics-mission-systems, definitive-contract, cost-plus-fixed-fee, sole-source, instrument-manufacturing, electrical-testing, virginia, long-lead-material

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $88.7 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. TI-08 LONG LEAD MATERIAL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $88.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-08-01. End: 2020-04-01.

What is the specific type and capability of the electrical signal measuring and testing instruments being procured?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals' under NAICS code 334515. However, the specific technical specifications, capabilities, and intended applications of these instruments are not detailed. This level of specificity is crucial for understanding the criticality of the procurement, assessing potential alternatives, and benchmarking costs effectively. Without this information, it's difficult to determine if the instruments are standard off-the-shelf items or highly specialized, custom-developed equipment, which significantly impacts cost and risk.

How was the determination made that General Dynamics Mission Systems was the only responsible source for these instruments?

The contract was awarded as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' indicating a sole-source justification. Typically, such justifications require a detailed report outlining why only one vendor can meet the requirement. Reasons can include unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling needs where switching vendors would be impractical, or extensive prior investment in a specific system. Without access to this justification document, it is impossible to independently verify the necessity of a sole-source award and assess if adequate market research was conducted to ensure no other sources could fulfill the need.

What are the projected costs and profit margins under the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure for this contract?

The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF). In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a fixed fee representing profit. While the 'fixed fee' component is fixed, the total cost is variable. This structure can incentivize contractors to incur costs to maximize their fee if the 'cost' portion is a significant driver. The specific fee percentage or dollar amount, and the estimated total cost, are not provided in the summary data. Understanding these elements is critical for assessing the value for money and the contractor's profit margin relative to the risk undertaken.

What is the historical spending trend for this specific type of instrumentation within the Department of Defense?

The provided data shows a single definitive contract awarded for $88.7 million with a start date of August 1, 2008, and an end date of April 1, 2020, spanning over 11 years. This suggests a consistent, long-term need for these instruments. However, it does not provide historical spending trends prior to this contract or details on whether similar instruments were procured through different contracts or vendors. To understand the overall spending pattern and identify potential cost efficiencies or shifts in procurement strategies, a broader analysis of historical spending on electrical signal testing instruments by the DoD would be necessary.

What are the performance metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with this contract?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. For a contract of this duration and value, especially one involving specialized instrumentation, performance standards related to reliability, accuracy, delivery timelines, and support are crucial. Without these KPIs, it is difficult to objectively assess the contractor's performance, the effectiveness of the delivered instruments, and whether the government received the expected value. Oversight agencies typically track such metrics to ensure contract compliance and mission success.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ManufacturingNavigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments ManufacturingInstrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals

Product/Service Code: SHIPS, SMALL CRAFT, PONTOON, DOCKS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N0002407R6231

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 9500 INNOVATION DR, MANASSAS, VA, 20110

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $145,380,536

Exercised Options: $139,803,446

Current Obligation: $88,665,568

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline

Start Date: 2008-08-01

Current End Date: 2020-04-01

Potential End Date: 2020-04-01 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2023-01-12

More Contracts from General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

View all General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending