Department of the Army awards $23.2M for 993 Light Tactical Vehicles to Global Fleet Sales LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,255,276 ($23.3M)

Contractor: Global Fleet Sales LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-09-24

End Date: 2011-01-30

Contract Duration: 128 days

Daily Burn Rate: $181.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: DO 001 IS FOR THE ORDER OF 993 LTVS.

Place of Performance

Location: SOUTHFIELD, OAKLAND County, MICHIGAN, 48034

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.3 million to GLOBAL FLEET SALES LLC for work described as: DO 001 IS FOR THE ORDER OF 993 LTVS. Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in tactical vehicle procurement for the Army. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are crucial for understanding pricing efficiency. 3. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. Delivery timelines and vehicle specifications are key performance indicators for this award. 5. This procurement falls within the broader defense sector's vehicle acquisition landscape.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $23.2 million for 993 Light Tactical Vehicles (LTVs) equates to approximately $23,421 per vehicle. Benchmarking this against similar LTV procurements is essential. Without direct comparisons for identical models and quantities, it's difficult to definitively assess value. However, the price appears within a reasonable range for specialized military vehicles, considering manufacturing, customization, and delivery logistics. Further analysis would require comparing specifications and quantities with other recent Army or DoD LTV awards.

Cost Per Unit: Approximately $23,421 per vehicle.

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The presence of 6 bidders suggests a reasonably competitive environment for this specific vehicle requirement. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and potentially better terms for the government. The fact that multiple companies vied for this contract implies that the market has suppliers capable of meeting the Army's needs for these LTVs.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition with multiple bidders generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces, ensuring the government receives the best possible value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize these Light Tactical Vehicles in their operations. The contract delivers essential mobility and utility capabilities for various military missions. The geographic impact is national, with potential deployment across various operational theaters. Workforce implications include jobs in manufacturing, logistics, and support roles related to vehicle production and delivery.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen production issues arise, though mitigated by fixed-price contract.
Risk of delivery delays impacting operational readiness if contractor faces supply chain disruptions.
Ensuring vehicle specifications precisely match evolving battlefield requirements is a continuous challenge.

Positive Signals

The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a robust market response.
The firm-fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
The relatively short performance period (128 days) indicates a focused and potentially efficient execution plan.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense manufacturing and vehicle acquisition sector. The market for tactical vehicles is specialized, with a limited number of prime contractors capable of meeting stringent military requirements. Spending in this area is driven by modernization efforts, operational tempo, and the need to replace aging fleets. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-volume procurements of similar light tactical or utility vehicles by the DoD or allied nations.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included specific small business set-asides. However, the prime contractor, Global Fleet Sales LLC, may engage small businesses for subcontracting opportunities related to parts, manufacturing, or logistics. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on the extent of any subcontracting plan implemented by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including delivery schedules and performance specifications. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Light Tactical Vehicle Procurement
Department of Defense Vehicle Acquisition
Military Mobility Solutions
Global Fleet Sales Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for delivery delays
Ensuring adherence to strict military specifications
Supply chain vulnerability for components

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.3 million to GLOBAL FLEET SALES LLC. DO 001 IS FOR THE ORDER OF 993 LTVS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GLOBAL FLEET SALES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-09-24. End: 2011-01-30.

What is the track record of Global Fleet Sales LLC in fulfilling large government vehicle contracts?

Global Fleet Sales LLC has a history of engaging in government contracts, primarily focused on vehicle sales and fleet management. Analyzing their past performance on similar large-scale procurements, particularly for military-grade vehicles, is crucial. This includes examining on-time delivery rates, adherence to specifications, and any past performance issues or disputes. While specific details on their track record for large LTV orders require deeper investigation into contract databases and performance reviews, their ability to win this competitive bid suggests a level of capability and experience deemed sufficient by the Department of the Army at the time of award. Further due diligence would involve reviewing any available past performance evaluations and ensuring consistency with the requirements of this specific DO.

How does the per-unit cost of these LTVs compare to similar recent procurements by the DoD?

The per-unit cost of approximately $23,421 for these 993 Light Tactical Vehicles (LTVs) needs to be benchmarked against comparable recent procurements by the Department of Defense. Factors such as specific vehicle model, customization level, quantity ordered, and contract type (e.g., firm-fixed-price vs. cost-plus) significantly influence unit pricing. Without direct comparisons of identical or highly similar LTVs procured under similar conditions, a precise value assessment is challenging. However, this figure should be compared against other DoD awards for utility vehicles, light trucks, or specialized tactical platforms acquired within the last 1-3 years. Variations in pricing could be attributed to market fluctuations, technological advancements, or differing operational requirements. A detailed analysis would involve identifying specific comparable contracts and adjusting for these variables.

What are the primary risks associated with this specific contract award?

The primary risks associated with this contract revolve around performance and delivery. Although it's a firm-fixed-price contract, which shifts cost risk to the contractor, there remains a risk of delivery delays. These delays could stem from supply chain disruptions affecting component availability, manufacturing bottlenecks, or unforeseen quality control issues. Such delays could impact the Army's operational readiness if these vehicles are critical for upcoming deployments or training exercises. Another risk is ensuring the vehicles precisely meet all specified technical and performance requirements throughout their lifecycle. While the fixed-price nature incentivizes the contractor to manage costs, it could potentially lead to compromises on quality if not rigorously overseen. The relatively short performance period (128 days) suggests a need for rapid execution, potentially increasing pressure and the risk of rushed work if not managed effectively.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money in this scenario?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in ensuring value for money for the government in scenarios like this LTV procurement, especially when the scope of work and requirements are well-defined. FFP shifts the majority of the cost risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to control expenses and deliver the product within the agreed-upon price. This provides budget certainty for the Department of the Army. For the government, value for money is realized if the contractor successfully delivers the specified quantity and quality of vehicles on time and within budget. The effectiveness hinges on the accuracy of the initial cost estimates and the contractor's ability to manage their own costs. If the contractor significantly underestimates costs, they may face financial strain, potentially impacting quality or delivery. Conversely, if the government overpays due to a poorly estimated baseline price, value for money may be diminished despite the FFP structure.

What are the historical spending patterns for Light Tactical Vehicles within the Department of the Army?

Historical spending patterns for Light Tactical Vehicles (LTVs) within the Department of the Army typically reflect ongoing fleet modernization, replacement cycles, and operational demands. The Army consistently procures various types of tactical vehicles, including LTVs, to support diverse mission requirements across different branches and combatant commands. Spending levels can fluctuate based on strategic priorities, budget allocations, and the urgency of replacing aging platforms. Major LTV procurements often occur in multi-year contracts or through competitive bidding processes similar to this award. Analyzing historical data reveals trends in the types of LTVs acquired (e.g., specific models, capabilities), the average unit costs over time, and the primary contractors involved. Significant spending surges might correlate with new program starts, major operational deployments, or congressional directives for fleet upgrades. Understanding these patterns helps contextualize the current $23.2 million award within the broader financial landscape of Army vehicle acquisition.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Motor Vehicle Manufacturing › Light Truck and Utility Vehicle Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MOTOR VEHICLES, CYCLES, TRAILERS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 24725 W 12 MILE RD STE 114, SOUTHFIELD, MI, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Federally Funded Research and Development Corp, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,255,276

Exercised Options: $23,255,276

Current Obligation: $23,255,276

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W56HZV10DG008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline