DoD's $138M engineering services contract awarded to General Dynamics Mission Systems raises value and competition questions
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $137,952,341 ($138.0M)
Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2021-11-16
End Date: 2026-06-30
Contract Duration: 1,687 days
Daily Burn Rate: $81.8K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: FY22 FC OMNI EO14042
Place of Performance
Location: PITTSFIELD, BERKSHIRE County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01201
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $138.0 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: FY22 FC OMNI EO14042 Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a non-competitive basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. The cost-plus-incentive-fee structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost control and performance. 3. The contract duration of nearly 5 years suggests a long-term need for these engineering services. 4. The specific engineering services provided are categorized under NAICS 541330, indicating a focus on engineering design. 5. The contract's value of $138 million warrants scrutiny regarding its alignment with market rates for similar services. 6. The absence of small business participation raises questions about broader economic impact and set-aside utilization.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The contract's value of $138 million for engineering services requires benchmarking against similar contracts to assess value for money. Given the sole-source award, it is difficult to definitively assess pricing fairness without competitive bids. The cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) contract type, while allowing flexibility, can lead to higher costs if not managed rigorously. The benchmark of $8.17 million in base year obligations suggests a significant portion of the total contract value is front-loaded, necessitating close oversight of expenditures.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a 'NOT COMPETED' basis, indicating a sole-source procurement. This means that only one vendor, General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., was solicited for this requirement. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions and potentially secure more favorable pricing through a bidding process. This approach is typically justified when only one source can meet the requirement, but it bypasses the price discovery mechanisms inherent in competitive contracting.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This lack of competition means the government may not be receiving the best possible value for its investment.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Navy and potentially other Department of Defense entities requiring specialized engineering services. The contract delivers essential engineering design and support services critical for defense systems and operations. The geographic impact is not specified but likely supports defense infrastructure and operations within the United States. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for engineers and technical staff at General Dynamics Mission Systems.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition may lead to inflated costs for taxpayers.
- Cost-plus-incentive-fee structure requires robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
- Absence of small business participation limits economic opportunities for smaller firms.
- Long contract duration could indicate a lack of market research for more agile solutions.
Positive Signals
- Award to a large, established defense contractor suggests potential for reliable service delivery.
- The incentive fee structure, if well-managed, can align contractor performance with government objectives.
- Engineering services are critical for national defense, implying a necessary function is being fulfilled.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the broader defense industrial base. The market for defense engineering services is substantial, with significant government spending allocated annually. This contract with General Dynamics Mission Systems, a major defense contractor, represents a portion of that spending. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale engineering support contracts awarded by the DoD or other federal agencies for similar types of services.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside (ss: false, sb: false). The award to a large prime contractor like General Dynamics Mission Systems suggests that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but this is not guaranteed or mandated by the contract terms. The absence of specific small business goals or set-asides means that the direct economic impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract is likely minimal, unless General Dynamics actively pursues small business subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. The cost-plus-incentive-fee structure necessitates detailed financial and performance monitoring to ensure adherence to contract terms and prevent cost overruns. Transparency is dependent on the agency's reporting practices and the public availability of contract performance data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Engineering Services
- Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Contracts
- General Dynamics Mission Systems Contracts
- Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee Contracts
- Sole-Source Defense Procurements
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award lacks competition
- Cost-plus-incentive-fee requires strong oversight
- No small business participation noted
- Long contract duration may reduce flexibility
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, engineering-services, general-dynamics-mission-systems, definitive-contract, not-competed, sole-source, cost-plus-incentive-fee, large-contract, long-term-contract, naics-541330
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $138.0 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. FY22 FC OMNI EO14042
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 (Department of the Navy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $138.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2021-11-16. End: 2026-06-30.
What is the track record of General Dynamics Mission Systems in delivering similar engineering services for the Department of Defense?
General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. is a well-established defense contractor with a long history of providing a wide range of services to the Department of Defense, including complex engineering, technology integration, and program management. They have been involved in numerous large-scale defense programs across various branches of the military. Their track record typically includes delivering sophisticated systems and support for naval, air, and ground platforms. While specific performance metrics for individual contracts are often not publicly detailed, their continued success in securing significant defense contracts suggests a generally positive performance history. However, like any large contractor, they may have faced past performance issues or disputes on specific projects, which would be detailed in internal agency performance evaluations.
How does the pricing structure of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar engineering services?
The contract utilizes a Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) structure, which can be complex to benchmark directly against fixed-price contracts or even other CPIF agreements without detailed cost breakdowns. The base year obligation of $8.17 million provides a starting point, but the total contract value of $138 million over nearly five years is substantial. Without access to the specific labor rates, overhead allocations, and profit margins negotiated, a precise comparison to industry benchmarks is challenging. However, the fact that it was sole-sourced means competitive market forces were not applied to drive down pricing, potentially leading to a higher cost than if it had been competed. Agencies typically conduct market research to establish independent government cost estimates (IGCEs) for sole-source procurements, but the details of this IGCE are not public.
What are the primary risks associated with this sole-source, cost-plus-incentive-fee contract?
The primary risks associated with this contract are twofold. Firstly, the sole-source nature ('NOT COMPETED') eliminates competitive pressure, which can lead to inflated costs and potentially less innovation compared to a fully competed contract. Taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible value. Secondly, the Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) structure, while designed to incentivize performance and cost control, carries inherent risks. If the cost targets and incentive criteria are not meticulously defined and monitored, the contractor may not be adequately motivated to control costs, or conversely, the incentives might be structured in a way that leads to unexpected cost increases. Robust government oversight is crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the contractor meets performance objectives within a reasonable cost framework.
What is the expected program effectiveness and how is it measured?
The expected program effectiveness is tied to the successful delivery of engineering services as defined by the contract's Statement of Work (SOW). These services are critical for supporting naval systems and operations, implying that effective delivery contributes directly to the Department of the Navy's mission readiness and technological advancement. Program effectiveness is typically measured through performance metrics outlined in the contract, such as meeting design specifications, adhering to schedules, achieving technical milestones, and managing costs within negotiated parameters. The incentive fee component of the CPIF contract is specifically designed to reward the contractor for exceeding performance targets, thus directly linking contractor success to program effectiveness from the government's perspective.
How does this contract's spending compare to historical spending on similar engineering services by the Department of the Navy?
Comparing this $138 million contract to historical spending requires access to detailed historical contract data for the Department of the Navy's engineering services. General Dynamics Mission Systems is a significant player in the defense sector, and the Navy frequently procures engineering support. Without specific historical data points for comparable sole-source CPIF contracts for engineering services under NAICS 541330, it's difficult to make a precise comparison. However, the value suggests it is a substantial contract, likely representing a significant portion of the Navy's annual investment in this specific type of engineering support from this contractor. Trends in defense spending and the increasing complexity of naval systems could indicate that such contract values are becoming more common, but a definitive comparison requires detailed historical analysis.
What are the implications of the contract duration (1687 days) on cost and flexibility?
The contract duration of approximately 4.6 years (1687 days) has several implications. For the contractor, it provides a stable revenue stream and allows for long-term planning and resource allocation. For the government, it ensures continuity of essential engineering services over an extended period. However, such a long duration, especially with a sole-source award, can reduce flexibility. It may lock the government into a specific provider and set of solutions, potentially missing out on technological advancements or more cost-effective alternatives that emerge during the contract period. From a cost perspective, longer contracts can sometimes offer economies of scale or more predictable budgeting, but they also increase the risk of cost escalation due to inflation or unforeseen project changes over time.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: FIRE CONTROL EQPT.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Solicitation ID: N0003022R1005
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Wico Limited
Address: 100 PLASTICS AVE, PITTSFIELD, MA, 01201
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $231,381,362
Exercised Options: $138,449,274
Current Obligation: $137,952,341
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 18
Total Subaward Amount: $4,834,508
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2021-11-16
Current End Date: 2026-06-30
Potential End Date: 2026-06-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-01-07
More Contracts from General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
- 200410!005969!2100!w15p7t!usa Communications-Electronics !w15p7t04ce405 !A!N! !N! ! !20040716!20111230!046863929!046863929!001381284!n!general Dynamics Decision Syst!8201 E Mcdowell Road !scottsdale !az!85257!65000!013!04!scottsdale !maricopa !arizona !+000010000000!n!n!000000000000!ac63!rdte/Electronics&communication Eq-Adv Tech DEV !A7 !electronics and Communication Equip !360 !jtrs Cluster I !541330!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!b! !A!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $1.5B (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $1.4B (Department of Defense)
- THE Space Network (SN) Consists of a Space Segment Comprised of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (tdrss), and a Ground Segment (sngs). the SN Provides the Capability for Global Space-To-Ground Telecommunications and Tracking Coverage for LOW Earth Orbit (LEO) and Near-Earth Spaceflight Missions, Including Both Robotic and Human Space Flight. the Sngs Includes Facilities and Systems Located AT the White Sands Complex (WSC) AT LAS Cruces, NM the Guam Remote Ground Terminal (grgt) AT Guam and Space Network Expansion (SNE) East AT Blossom Point, MD. the Purpose of the Sgss Project IS to Implement a Modern Ground Segment That Will Enable the SN to Continue to Deliver High Quality Services to the SN Community, Meet Stakeholder Requirements, and Significantly Reduce Required Operations and Maintenance Resources — $1.2B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Federal Contract — $1.2B (Department of Defense)
- SDA Tranche 1 Operations and Integration — $861.6M (Department of Defense)
View all General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)