DoD's $847M contract for Trident missile systems engineering services awarded to General Dynamics

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $149,739,726 ($149.7M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-12-31

End Date: 2010-08-14

Contract Duration: 2,783 days

Daily Burn Rate: $53.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200303!00A064!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003003C0008 !A!N! !Y!N0003003C0008 !20021231!20060130!847075769!003587024!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS DEFENSE SYSTE!100 PLASTICS AVE !PITTSFIELD !MA!01201!53960!003!25!PITTSFIELD !BERKSHIRE !MASS !+000054441703!N!N!000000000000!H914!OTHER QUALITY CNTL SVCS/GUIDED MISSILES !A2 !MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS !2CNJ!UGM-96 TRIDENT !541330!E! !3! ! !C! ! !99990909!B!B!Y!A! !D!N!U!1!001!N!1A!A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !Z!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: PITTSFIELD, BERKSHIRE County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01201

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $149.7 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: 200303!00A064!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003003C0008 !A!N! !Y!N0003003C0008 !20021231!20060130!847075769!003587024!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS DEFENSE SYSTE!100 PLASTICS AVE !PITTSFIELD !MA!01201!53960!003!25!PITTSFIELD !BERKS… Key points: 1. Contract value of $847.1 million over its period of performance. 2. Services procured include engineering and technical support for missile systems. 3. Awarded as a sole-source contract, raising questions about competition. 4. Performance period spanned from December 2002 to August 2010. 5. Contractor, General Dynamics, has a significant role in defense systems. 6. The contract falls under the 'Other Quality Control Services/Guided Missiles' category.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value was $847.1 million. Without comparable sole-source contracts for similar missile system engineering services, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the duration of the contract (over 7 years) suggests a substantial, long-term need for these specialized services. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for complex R&D, can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not closely managed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, indicating that only one contractor, General Dynamics, was deemed capable of providing the required specialized engineering services for the Trident missile systems. This approach bypasses the typical competitive bidding process, which can limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not benefit from the cost savings typically achieved through a competitive bidding environment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, specifically programs related to strategic missile systems. Services delivered include critical engineering, technical, and quality control support for the UGM-96 Trident missile. The geographic impact is primarily within the defense industrial base, with General Dynamics' facilities in Pittsfield, MA, being a key location. Workforce implications include employment for highly skilled engineers and technical personnel within General Dynamics.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure can incentivize cost escalation if not managed.
Lack of competition may reduce innovation incentives for the contractor.

Positive Signals

General Dynamics is a recognized leader in defense systems, suggesting technical capability.
Long-term contract indicates a sustained need and potential for stable support.
Focus on critical strategic missile systems highlights national security importance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically supporting strategic missile systems. The market for such specialized engineering services is highly concentrated, with a few large defense contractors possessing the requisite expertise and security clearances. General Dynamics is a major player in this space, providing a range of defense and aerospace products and services. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of strategic weapon systems and the sole-source award.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as it was awarded to a large prime contractor, General Dynamics. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. The focus on specialized missile systems engineering likely requires large-scale, integrated capabilities that are typically handled by prime contractors, potentially limiting direct opportunities for small businesses in this specific contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of Defense, likely through its contract management agencies such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures would be tied to the terms of the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, requiring General Dynamics to adhere to performance standards and cost controls. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the classified aspects often associated with strategic weapon systems.

Related Government Programs

Strategic Systems Programs
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Defense Engineering Services
Guided Missile Development

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus contract type
Long performance period

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $149.7 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. 200303!00A064!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003003C0008 !A!N! !Y!N0003003C0008 !20021231!20060130!847075769!003587024!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS DEFENSE SYSTE!100 PLASTICS AVE !PITTSFIELD !MA!01201!53960!003!25!PITTSFIELD !BERKSHIRE !MASS !+000054441703!N!N!000000000000!H914!OTHER QUALITY CNTL SVCS/GUIDED MISSILES !A2 !MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS !2CNJ!UGM-96 TRIDENT !541330!E! !3! ! !C! ! !99990909!B

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 $149.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-12-31. End: 2010-08-14.

What is the track record of General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. in delivering complex defense engineering services?

General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. (GDMS) has a long-standing and extensive track record in delivering complex defense engineering services, particularly in areas such as command and control, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and cyber security. As a major defense contractor, GDMS is involved in numerous high-stakes programs for the U.S. military and its allies. Their expertise spans the entire lifecycle of defense systems, from research and development to sustainment and modernization. For strategic systems like the Trident missile, GDMS's involvement suggests a deep understanding of the technical requirements, security protocols, and program management necessary for such critical national assets. Their history includes significant contributions to naval systems, space systems, and other advanced technological platforms, underscoring their capability to handle contracts of this magnitude and complexity.

How does the $847 million contract value compare to similar missile system engineering contracts?

Direct comparison of this $847 million contract value to similar missile system engineering contracts is challenging due to several factors. Firstly, the contract was sole-source, limiting visibility into competitive pricing benchmarks. Secondly, the UGM-96 Trident missile is a specific, strategic asset, and the engineering services required are highly specialized and likely unique. Contracts for less complex or non-strategic missile systems, or those awarded competitively, might show different price points. However, given the duration of over seven years and the critical nature of strategic missile systems, a value in the hundreds of millions of dollars is not unexpected for comprehensive engineering and technical support. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure also means the final cost could vary based on effort expended.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award for critical defense systems?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award for critical defense systems like the Trident missile program include a lack of competitive pressure, which can lead to inflated prices and reduced incentives for efficiency and innovation. Without competing bids, the government may overpay for the services rendered. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes overly reliant on a single provider, potentially hindering future flexibility or the adoption of alternative technologies. Furthermore, sole-source awards can raise concerns about fairness and transparency in the procurement process, potentially leading to perceptions of favoritism or missed opportunities for other capable contractors. Robust oversight and negotiation are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective is the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for managing R&D and engineering services?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is often used for research and development (R&D) and complex engineering services where the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset, or where innovation and exploration are key objectives. Its effectiveness lies in allowing the contractor to incur the necessary costs to complete the work while providing a fixed fee as profit, incentivizing the contractor to manage costs to maximize their fee. However, CPFF contracts carry risks. If not managed diligently, they can lead to cost overruns as the government bears the risk of actual costs. The contractor's incentive is to complete the work, but the profit margin is fixed, which can sometimes lead to less aggressive cost control compared to fixed-price contracts. Effective government oversight is critical to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services related to strategic missile programs within the Department of Defense?

Historical spending patterns for engineering services related to strategic missile programs within the Department of Defense are characterized by long-term, high-value contracts awarded to a limited number of specialized defense contractors. These programs, due to their national security significance and technological complexity, often involve substantial and sustained investment over decades. Spending typically includes research, development, testing, evaluation, and ongoing sustainment engineering. Contracts are frequently sole-source or awarded on a limited competition basis due to the unique capabilities required. While specific figures fluctuate based on modernization cycles and program priorities, the overall trend indicates consistent, significant budgetary allocation towards maintaining and advancing these critical capabilities, often running into billions of dollars cumulatively across various strategic missile platforms.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: QUALITY CONTROL, TEST, INSPECTION › OTHER QUALITY, TEST, INSPECT SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 100 PLASTICS AVE, PITTSFIELD, MA, 01201

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline