DoD's $10.2M engineering services contract with Sikorsky Support Services Inc. awarded without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,242,909 ($10.2M)

Contractor: Sikorsky Support Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-07-26

End Date: 2009-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,984 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Place of Performance

Location: STRATFORD, FAIRFIELD County, CONNECTICUT, 06614

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.2 million to SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES INC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating defined scope and cost. 2. Long duration of 1984 days suggests a sustained need for engineering services. 3. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies. 4. Awarded to a single entity, Sikorsky Support Services Inc., for specialized engineering. 5. The contract's value is substantial, requiring careful scrutiny of its necessity and pricing. 6. Services provided under NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services) are critical for defense operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $10.2 million contract is challenging without detailed service descriptions and performance metrics. Given it was not competed, it's difficult to assess if the pricing reflects competitive market rates. The long duration suggests a significant investment, and without comparative data, it's hard to determine if the government received excellent value for money. Further analysis would require understanding the specific engineering tasks performed and comparing them to industry standards or similar sole-source procurements.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not open to competition. This typically occurs when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities or when urgency precludes a competitive process. The lack of competition means that price discovery through market forces was bypassed, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a competed scenario. The rationale for this sole-source award would need to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure it was fully justified.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without multiple offers, there's less pressure on the contractor to offer the lowest possible price, potentially increasing the overall cost to the government.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from specialized engineering services crucial for its operations. This contract supports the maintenance and enhancement of critical defense assets. The services likely impact the readiness and effectiveness of military equipment. Workforce implications may include specialized engineering roles within Sikorsky Support Services Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated pricing.
Sole-source awards can reduce accountability and incentivize less efficient performance.
Long contract duration without clear performance benchmarks poses a risk.
Absence of market testing limits understanding of fair market value.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to a known entity (Sikorsky) may indicate specialized expertise.
Long duration suggests a stable, ongoing requirement met by this contractor.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector supports a wide range of government functions, particularly in defense, where complex engineering solutions are required for equipment design, maintenance, and upgrades. The total federal spending on engineering services is substantial, with significant portions allocated to defense agencies. This specific contract represents a portion of that spending, focused on specialized support for the Department of the Army.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, there is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor, Sikorsky Support Services Inc., is expected to perform the majority of the work, and there may be limited direct opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses in its supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program office within the Department of the Army. As a sole-source award, scrutiny might be heightened to ensure the justification for non-competition was valid and that the contractor is meeting all performance requirements. Transparency is limited due to the lack of a competitive bidding process. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Engineering Services
Army Aviation Support Contracts
Sole-Source Defense Procurements
Firm-Fixed-Price Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing pressure.
Long contract duration without clear performance metrics.
Potential for cost overruns due to lack of competition.
Limited transparency in the procurement process.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.2 million to SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES INC. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-07-26. End: 2009-12-31.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract, and how did they contribute to the Department of the Army's mission?

The contract, awarded under NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services), likely encompassed a range of specialized technical support for the Department of the Army. While specific details are not provided in the data, such services could include design, analysis, testing, and integration of complex systems, potentially related to aviation or other military platforms. These services are crucial for maintaining the operational readiness, safety, and technological superiority of military assets. The long duration of the contract (1984 days) suggests a sustained need for these engineering capabilities, indicating their integral role in supporting ongoing Army operations and modernization efforts.

How does the $10.2 million contract value compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

Comparing the $10.2 million value of this contract requires context regarding the scope and duration of services. As a sole-source award with a duration of nearly five and a half years (1984 days), the annual value is approximately $1.7 million. This figure needs to be benchmarked against other sole-source or competed engineering services contracts for similar defense needs. Without access to a broader dataset of comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state whether this represents a high, low, or average expenditure. However, the lack of competition inherently makes direct value comparison challenging, as market forces that typically drive competitive pricing were absent.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' signifying a sole-source award. The specific justification for this decision is not detailed but typically falls under exceptions to full and open competition outlined in federal acquisition regulations. Common reasons include the unavailability of other sources, urgency of need, or when the contract is a follow-on to a previously competed effort where only one source is deemed capable. For a contract of this magnitude and duration, the justification would likely need to be robust, demonstrating that competition was either impossible or not in the government's best interest, and that the sole-source provider possesses unique qualifications.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a long-term, sole-source engineering services contract?

Awarding a long-term, sole-source engineering services contract carries several potential risks. Firstly, the absence of competition can lead to higher costs for the government, as the contractor faces less pressure to offer competitive pricing. Secondly, there's a risk of complacency or reduced innovation from the contractor, knowing they are the sole provider for an extended period. Thirdly, performance monitoring becomes critical; without competitive benchmarks, it can be harder to assess if the contractor is delivering optimal value and quality. Finally, dependence on a single contractor can create vulnerabilities if that contractor experiences financial difficulties, operational issues, or undergoes significant changes.

What is the track record of Sikorsky Support Services Inc. in performing similar government contracts, particularly sole-source awards?

Sikorsky Support Services Inc. is a known entity in the defense contracting space, often associated with aviation support and engineering. To assess their track record on this specific $10.2 million, sole-source contract, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, any contract disputes, and the successful completion of deliverables. Information on their history with sole-source awards would be particularly relevant, highlighting whether they have consistently delivered value and met requirements under such conditions. A comprehensive review would involve searching government databases for past performance reviews and contract histories.

How does the $1.7 million average annual value of this contract compare to overall federal spending on engineering services?

The average annual value of this contract is approximately $1.7 million ($10.2M / 1984 days * 365 days/year). Federal spending on engineering services (NAICS 541330) is a significant portion of the overall federal procurement budget, particularly within the Department of Defense. While $1.7 million annually might seem modest in the context of the entire defense budget, it represents a substantial investment for a single contract. To provide a meaningful comparison, this figure would need to be benchmarked against the average contract size and total spending within the engineering services category across all federal agencies, as well as specifically within the Department of the Army, to understand its relative scale.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp (UEI: 001344142)

Address: 6900 MAIN STREET, STRATFORD, CT, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,247,479

Exercised Options: $10,242,909

Current Obligation: $10,242,909

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline