DoD's $23M contract for AADS/PADS systems awarded to Cambridge International Systems Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,025,611 ($23.0M)

Contractor: Cambridge International Systems Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-08-30

End Date: 2025-12-31

Contract Duration: 854 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: IT

Official Description: AADS AND PADS AGILE OPERATIONS CENTERS SYSTEMS DESIGN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT, AND INSTALLATION

Place of Performance

Location: HANAHAN, BERKELEY County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29410

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.0 million to CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS INC. for work described as: AADS AND PADS AGILE OPERATIONS CENTERS SYSTEMS DESIGN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT, AND INSTALLATION Key points: 1. Contract value of $23.02M for systems design, engineering, procurement, and installation. 2. Awarded to Cambridge International Systems Inc. under full and open competition. 3. Delivery Order type indicates a specific task within a larger contract vehicle. 4. Performance period spans from August 2023 to December 2025. 5. The contract falls under the 'Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code. 6. The contract is managed by the Department of the Navy, a component of the DoD. 7. The contract is not set aside for small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $23.02 million for systems design, engineering, procurement, and installation appears to be within a reasonable range for complex technology projects. However, without specific details on the scope of 'AADS AND PADS AGILE OPERATIONS CENTERS SYSTEMS' and comparable project costs, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. The 'COST NO FEE' contract type suggests the government bears the cost, with the contractor receiving a fixed fee, which can sometimes lead to less incentive for cost control compared to fixed-price contracts. Benchmarking against similar DoD agile operations center system procurements would provide a clearer picture of its cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while the competition was initially open, certain sources were excluded before the final award. This suggests a competitive process, but the exclusion of sources warrants further investigation to understand the rationale and potential impact on the breadth of competition. The number of bidders is not specified, which limits the ability to assess the intensity of the competition and its effect on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition, despite source exclusions, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple vendors to bid, potentially driving down costs. However, the exclusion of specific sources could limit the most competitive offers from reaching the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Navy and the broader Department of Defense, gaining enhanced agile operations center systems. The services delivered include systems design, engineering, procurement, and installation, crucial for modern defense infrastructure. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the operational areas of the Department of the Navy, potentially including naval bases or deployed units. Workforce implications may involve specialized engineers, technicians, and procurement specialists required for the design, development, and implementation of these systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type raises questions about the extent of true open competition and potential limitations on best value.
Lack of specific details on the 'AADS AND PADS AGILE OPERATIONS CENTERS SYSTEMS' makes it difficult to benchmark performance and assess the true scope of work.
The 'COST NO FEE' contract type, while common, can sometimes reduce contractor incentives for aggressive cost management.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad initial outreach for potential bidders.
The contract duration of over two years suggests a significant and potentially complex project requiring sustained effort.
The contract is managed by the Department of the Navy, a major component of the DoD with extensive experience in complex system procurements.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology and Defense sectors, specifically related to the manufacturing of wireless communications equipment and systems integration. The NAICS code 334220 covers establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment. The market for defense-related communication systems is substantial, driven by the need for secure, reliable, and advanced technologies to support military operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other DoD contracts for similar communication infrastructure, command and control systems, or agile operations center development.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, as indicated by 'ss': false and 'sb': false. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications specifically mandated for small businesses through a set-aside program. However, the prime contractor, Cambridge International Systems Inc., may still engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill parts of the contract, depending on their own subcontracting strategies and the availability of specialized services. The absence of a small business set-aside means that larger, established companies were likely the primary focus of this competition.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract terms, including performance metrics, delivery schedules, and quality standards. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS-NG, where basic information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Command and Control Systems
Naval Communication Systems Procurement
Agile Development Contracts
Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing
Defense Information Technology Modernization

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Lack of detailed scope definition for 'AADS AND PADS AGILE OPERATIONS CENTERS SYSTEMS'.
Cost risk associated with 'COST NO FEE' contract type.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.0 million to CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS INC.. AADS AND PADS AGILE OPERATIONS CENTERS SYSTEMS DESIGN ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT, AND INSTALLATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL 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 $23.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-08-30. End: 2025-12-31.

What is the specific nature and scope of the 'AADS AND PADS AGILE OPERATIONS CENTERS SYSTEMS' being procured?

The provided data does not detail the specific functionalities or components of the 'AADS AND PADS AGILE OPERATIONS CENTERS SYSTEMS.' 'AADS' and 'PADS' likely refer to specific acronyms within the Department of Defense related to aviation, air defense, or personnel/asset tracking systems, and 'Agile Operations Centers' suggests a focus on adaptable, modern command and control facilities. The contract covers systems design, engineering, procurement, and installation, implying a comprehensive solution. Without further documentation or a detailed statement of work, the exact technical specifications, operational requirements, and intended end-users remain unclear. This lack of specificity makes it challenging to fully assess the contract's necessity, potential risks, and alignment with broader defense objectives.

How does the pricing structure ('COST NO FEE') compare to similar DoD contracts for systems integration and procurement?

The 'COST NO FEE' contract type is a variation of cost-reimbursement contracts where the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs incurred, plus a fixed fee representing their profit. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined, or when the government wants to encourage rapid development or innovation. Compared to fixed-price contracts, 'COST NO FEE' can offer less incentive for the contractor to control costs, as the government bears the direct cost risk. However, it provides flexibility for evolving requirements. Benchmarking against similar DoD contracts would require identifying projects with comparable technical complexity, duration, and agency. Generally, cost-reimbursement contracts tend to be higher in total cost than well-defined fixed-price contracts due to the inherent cost risk transferred to the government and the administrative overhead associated with cost monitoring.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type?

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type presents a nuanced risk profile. While it begins with the intent of broad competition, the subsequent exclusion of specific sources introduces a potential risk of limiting the pool of highly qualified or innovative bidders. The rationale behind these exclusions is critical; if based on legitimate technical or security requirements, the risk is mitigated. However, if the exclusions are arbitrary or perceived as favoring certain entities, it could lead to reduced price competition and potentially a less optimal solution for the government. Transparency regarding the criteria for exclusion is key to assessing this risk. It could also lead to protests from excluded vendors, causing delays and increasing administrative costs.

What is Cambridge International Systems Inc.'s track record with similar large-scale DoD systems integration contracts?

Assessing Cambridge International Systems Inc.'s track record requires examining their past performance on contracts of similar size, scope, and technical complexity, particularly within the Department of Defense and for systems integration, engineering, procurement, and installation. Information on their past performance, including on-time delivery, budget adherence, quality of work, and any past performance issues or awards, would be crucial. A review of contract databases and performance evaluations (if publicly available) would provide insight into their capabilities and reliability. Without this specific historical data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their suitability and predict their performance on this $23 million contract.

How does the $23.02 million contract value compare to historical spending on similar agile operations center systems by the Department of the Navy?

To compare this $23.02 million contract value to historical spending, one would need to analyze past Department of the Navy (DoN) contracts for the development, procurement, and installation of agile operations centers or similar command and control systems. This would involve searching contract databases for relevant keywords, NAICS codes, and agencies over a specific period. Factors such as inflation, technological advancements, and changes in operational requirements would need to be considered for a fair comparison. If this contract represents a significant increase or decrease compared to previous similar procurements, it could indicate changes in market prices, scope, or the DoN's strategic priorities regarding agile operations infrastructure.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N6523623R3042

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2300 CLARENDON BLVD STE 705, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,125,611

Exercised Options: $23,125,611

Current Obligation: $23,025,611

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6523618D3003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline