State Department awarded $14.6M for armored vehicles to BAE Systems, a non-competitive delivery order

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,654,480 ($14.7M)

Contractor: BAE Systems Survivability Systems LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2008-04-10

End Date: 2013-11-08

Contract Duration: 2,038 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.2K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: ARMORED VEHICLES

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22030

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $14.7 million to BAE SYSTEMS SURVIVABILITY SYSTEMS LLC for work described as: ARMORED VEHICLES Key points: 1. The contract was awarded non-competitively, raising questions about potential cost savings and market fairness. 2. BAE Systems, a large defense contractor, secured this award, indicating established relationships within the sector. 3. The duration of the contract (2038) suggests a long-term need for these specialized vehicles. 4. The fixed-price nature of the contract aims to control costs, but the lack of competition limits benchmarking. 5. The specific vehicle type (armored) points to high-risk operational environments or security requirements. 6. The contract's value is significant, warranting scrutiny of its necessity and efficiency.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value for this contract is challenging due to its non-competitive nature and specialized equipment. Without competing bids, it's difficult to ascertain if the $14.6 million price reflects a fair market value. The fixed-price contract type offers some cost certainty, but the lack of competition means taxpayers may not have benefited from the most economical pricing achievable through a competitive process. Further analysis would require comparing this to similar specialized armored vehicle procurements, which are often sensitive and not publicly detailed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning it was not openly competed. This typically occurs when a specific vendor is the only source capable of meeting the requirement, or in situations where urgency or existing contracts dictate a sole-source award. The lack of competition means that multiple potential suppliers were not evaluated, and the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for these armored vehicles due to the absence of competitive pressure to drive down costs. The government's negotiating position is weakened without alternative offers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely U.S. diplomatic personnel operating in high-risk environments, who will receive enhanced security. The services delivered involve the provision of specialized armored vehicles, crucial for protecting personnel and assets. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in overseas locations where security threats are elevated. Workforce implications may include specialized maintenance and operational training for personnel operating these vehicles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and missed opportunities for better value.
The long contract duration could lead to cost escalations or obsolescence if not managed proactively.
Specialized nature of armored vehicles may limit aftermarket support and increase long-term maintenance costs.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the awarded amount.
Award to a known entity (BAE Systems) suggests a level of confidence in their capability to deliver.
The contract addresses a critical security need for personnel operating in potentially dangerous areas.

Sector Analysis

The procurement of specialized vehicles, particularly armored ones, falls within the broader defense and security sector. This market is characterized by high barriers to entry, significant R&D investment, and long-standing relationships between government agencies and prime contractors. Spending in this area is driven by geopolitical factors, threat assessments, and the need to protect personnel and assets in challenging environments. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish publicly due to the sensitive and often proprietary nature of such specialized equipment.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides. BAE Systems is a large defense contractor. The implications for small businesses are likely indirect, potentially through subcontracting opportunities if BAE Systems engages them for specific components or services, though this is not explicitly stated in the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of State's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be tied to the delivery of the armored vehicles according to the contract's specifications and timeline. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award and the specialized, security-sensitive equipment involved. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Vehicle Procurement
Armored Vehicle Acquisition Programs
Specialized Security Equipment Contracts

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Lack of detailed specifications in summary data
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $14.7 million to BAE SYSTEMS SURVIVABILITY SYSTEMS LLC. ARMORED VEHICLES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BAE SYSTEMS SURVIVABILITY SYSTEMS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-04-10. End: 2013-11-08.

What is the specific type and capability of the armored vehicles procured?

The provided data indicates the procurement is for 'ARMORED VEHICLES' under NAICS code 441229 (All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers). However, specific details regarding the make, model, level of armor protection, armament, or specialized mission capabilities are not included in this summary. Such information is often considered sensitive due to security implications and may be detailed in separate, less publicly accessible contract documentation. The 'All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers' classification suggests a broad category, and the 'armored' descriptor is the key indicator of specialized function.

Why was this contract awarded on a non-competitive basis?

The data explicitly states the contract type as 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER'. Non-competitive awards, often referred to as sole-source, typically occur when only one responsible source can satisfy the agency's needs. This could be due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent requirements where competition is not feasible, or if the item is a follow-on to a previously competed contract where only the original source can provide compatible systems. Without further documentation, the precise justification for this non-competitive award by the Department of State remains unspecified but implies a lack of viable alternatives at the time of award.

What is the track record of BAE Systems in delivering similar armored vehicles to the government?

BAE Systems is a major global defense contractor with extensive experience in producing a wide range of armored vehicles, including personnel carriers, combat vehicles, and security vehicles for various military and government clients worldwide. While this specific contract was a delivery order, BAE Systems has a significant history of large-scale, competitive contracts for armored platforms. Their track record generally indicates a capacity to produce complex armored systems, though performance on individual contracts can vary. Assessing their performance on this specific $14.6 million contract would require examining delivery schedules, adherence to specifications, and any reported issues during its execution period (2008-2013).

How does the $14.6 million cost compare to similar armored vehicle procurements?

Direct comparison of the $14.6 million cost is difficult without knowing the exact quantity and specifications of the armored vehicles procured. Armored vehicles vary significantly in price based on their protection levels, size, intended use (e.g., transport, combat, patrol), and integrated systems. A single, highly protected vehicle could cost upwards of $1 million or more. Given this was a delivery order potentially encompassing multiple vehicles or a specific suite of capabilities, the $14.6 million figure could represent a reasonable cost for a specialized fleet or a significant upgrade package. However, the non-competitive nature prevents a definitive value-for-money assessment against market alternatives.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-term contract for specialized vehicles like these?

Long-term contracts for specialized vehicles carry several risks. Firstly, technological obsolescence is a concern; advancements in armor, propulsion, or communication systems could render the procured vehicles outdated before the contract's end date (which extends to 2013, implying a 5-year duration from 2008). Secondly, maintenance and sustainment costs can escalate over time, especially for specialized equipment that may require unique parts or expertise. Thirdly, if the threat environment changes, the specific capabilities of the vehicles might become less relevant or insufficient. Finally, the lack of ongoing competition means the government is locked into a single provider, potentially reducing leverage for future upgrades or modifications.

What oversight mechanisms were in place for this non-competitive delivery order?

Oversight for this delivery order would have been managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of State responsible for vehicle acquisition and security. Standard oversight would include monitoring contractor performance against the terms of the delivery order, ensuring timely delivery, verifying compliance with specifications, and managing payments. For non-competitive awards, the justification and approval documentation are critical oversight elements, demonstrating why competition was not feasible. Additionally, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) could review protests, and the Inspector General's office could investigate allegations of mismanagement or impropriety.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Retail Trade › Other Motor Vehicle Dealers › All Other Motor Vehicle Dealers

Product/Service Code: TRANSPORT, TRAVEL, RELOCATION › TRANSPORTATION OF THINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: BAE Systems PLC (UEI: 217304393)

Address: 9113 LE SAINT DR, FAIRFIELD, OH, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $47,999,905

Exercised Options: $47,999,905

Current Obligation: $14,654,480

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SAQMMA07D0023

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline