DoD's $150M land-based deployment contract for surveying services awarded to Insitu, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $150,421,894 ($150.4M)

Contractor: Insitu, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-01-10

End Date: 2017-02-28

Contract Duration: 1,510 days

Daily Burn Rate: $99.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: LAND-BASED DEPLOYMENT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $150.4 million to INSITU, INC. for work described as: LAND-BASED DEPLOYMENT Key points: 1. Contract value of $150.4 million over 4 years suggests significant investment in surveying and mapping. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. The contract's duration and value may present opportunities for sustained contractor performance and potential for cost efficiencies. 4. Focus on land-based deployment points to specific operational needs within the Department of the Navy. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags the need to examine subcontracting opportunities. 6. Fixed-price contract type aims to transfer risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing costs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $150.4 million over approximately four years averages around $37.6 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale surveying and mapping contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to control costs. The award amount relative to the duration indicates a substantial commitment, and further analysis would be needed to determine if the pricing reflects competitive market rates for the specific services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders were likely encouraged to submit proposals. This method is generally preferred for maximizing competition and achieving the best value for the government. The number of bidders and the specific evaluation criteria would provide a clearer picture of the competitive intensity and its impact on price discovery. A robust competition typically leads to more favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a market where contractors are incentivized to offer competitive pricing to win awards. This process helps ensure that government funds are used efficiently and that the services procured are obtained at a fair market value.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy is the primary beneficiary, receiving critical surveying and mapping services. Services delivered likely support land-based operations, infrastructure development, or intelligence gathering. Geographic impact is potentially widespread, depending on the Navy's operational footprint. Workforce implications may include specialized surveyors, mappers, and support personnel, both within the contractor's organization and potentially in related support industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for contractor lock-in due to the long-term nature and specific expertise required.
Risk of cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen complexities in land-based deployment.
Dependence on a single contractor for a significant duration could limit flexibility in adopting new technologies or approaches.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that should yield good value.
Fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially protecting the government from unexpected expenses.
The substantial contract value indicates a significant need and likely a well-defined scope of work, suggesting a clear purpose.
Long contract duration allows for potential efficiency gains and relationship building with the contractor.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services sector, a niche within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This sector is crucial for various government functions, including infrastructure planning, environmental management, and defense operations. The market size for such specialized services can be significant, driven by ongoing government needs for accurate spatial data. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type and scale of surveying and mapping required, but large-scale government contracts in this area often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary award was made to a large business or that subcontracting opportunities were not specifically mandated as part of the set-aside strategy. Further investigation into the contractor's subcontracting plan would be necessary to understand the extent to which small businesses may participate in fulfilling the contract requirements. The absence of a set-aside could mean fewer direct opportunities for small businesses on the prime contract level.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract structure, which incentivizes the contractor to meet defined deliverables within budget. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected or alleged.

Related Government Programs

Geospatial Intelligence Services
Military Construction Support Services
Defense Mapping Agency Operations
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Services
Surveying and Cartography Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns in fixed-price contracts
Contractor performance risk over long duration
Dependence on specific technology or expertise
Limited small business participation opportunities

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $150.4 million to INSITU, INC.. LAND-BASED DEPLOYMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INSITU, 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 $150.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-01-10. End: 2017-02-28.

What is the specific nature of the 'land-based deployment' services procured under this contract?

The term 'land-based deployment' in the context of this contract likely refers to the provision of surveying and mapping services conducted on terrestrial environments. This could encompass a wide range of activities such as topographic surveying, boundary mapping, site surveys for construction or infrastructure projects, geological surveys for land use planning, or the creation of detailed maps for military operations. The specific nature would depend on the detailed requirements outlined in the contract's statement of work. Given the Department of the Navy as the agency, these services might support naval installations, coastal mapping, or land acquisition for naval purposes. The 'INSITU, INC.' contractor name might suggest a connection to unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or other remote sensing technologies used for land-based data collection, although this is speculative without further information.

How does the average annual spending of approximately $37.6 million compare to similar large-scale surveying and mapping contracts awarded by the DoD?

To accurately benchmark the average annual spending of approximately $37.6 million, a detailed comparison with similar large-scale surveying and mapping contracts awarded by the DoD is necessary. This would involve identifying contracts with comparable scope, duration, and service complexity. Without access to a comprehensive database of such contracts and their specific details, a precise comparison is difficult. However, for major federal agencies like the DoD, annual spending in specialized technical services like advanced surveying and mapping can range significantly. Contracts supporting large infrastructure projects, extensive geographic data acquisition, or critical defense intelligence mapping could easily fall within or exceed this range. The key is to match the scale and technical requirements of the services.

What are the potential risks associated with a fixed-price contract of this magnitude and duration for land-based surveying services?

A significant risk with a fixed-price contract of this magnitude ($150.4 million over ~4 years) is the potential for the contractor to underbid or underestimate the complexity and cost of the required land-based surveying services. If unforeseen challenges arise, such as difficult terrain, environmental restrictions, unexpected subsurface conditions, or changes in regulatory requirements, the contractor may incur losses or seek change orders, potentially increasing the overall cost to the government. Conversely, if the contractor significantly overestimates costs, the government may end up paying a premium. Another risk is that the fixed price might disincentivize the contractor from adopting more efficient or innovative methods if they are not explicitly required by the contract, as the focus remains on delivering the defined scope within the agreed price.

What performance metrics or quality assurance measures are likely in place to ensure the effectiveness of the surveying and mapping services?

For a contract of this size and importance, the Department of the Navy would likely implement robust performance metrics and quality assurance (QA) measures. These typically include adherence to specified accuracy standards (e.g., horizontal and vertical accuracy), timely delivery of data and reports, compliance with relevant industry standards (e.g., ASPRS standards), and the successful completion of milestones. QA processes might involve regular reviews of deliverables by government technical representatives, site inspections, and potentially independent verification of survey data. Performance would likely be evaluated through contractor performance assessment reporting system (CPARS) or similar mechanisms, tracking the contractor's reliability, technical competence, and overall performance against contract requirements.

How has the Department of the Navy's spending on surveying and mapping services evolved over the past decade, and does this contract represent a significant shift?

Analyzing the Department of the Navy's spending on surveying and mapping services over the past decade would require access to historical procurement data. Without this specific data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this $150.4 million contract represents a significant shift. However, trends in defense spending often reflect evolving geopolitical landscapes, technological advancements, and infrastructure needs. Increased focus on areas like autonomous systems, cybersecurity for geospatial data, or mapping for complex operational environments could drive higher spending. If the Navy's historical spending in this category has been consistently lower, this contract could indicate a strategic increase in investment, perhaps driven by new mission requirements or modernization efforts. Conversely, it might represent a continuation of established spending levels for critical support functions.

What is the track record of Insitu, Inc. in performing large federal contracts, particularly within the defense sector?

Insitu, Inc. is a well-known entity, particularly recognized for its development and deployment of unmanned aerial systems (UAS). Their track record within the defense sector is substantial, with numerous contracts awarded by various branches of the U.S. military, including the Department of the Navy. These contracts often involve providing UAS platforms, training, support services, and data collection capabilities. While specific details on their performance for every contract are not publicly available, their continued success in securing significant defense contracts suggests a generally positive track record in delivering required capabilities. Their expertise in aerial data acquisition aligns with the potential needs of a large surveying and mapping contract, especially if remote sensing technologies are involved.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Surveying and Mapping (except Geophysical) Services

Product/Service Code: TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE SVCS. › TECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N0001910R0054

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Boeing Company (UEI: 009256819)

Address: 118 E COLUMBIA RIVER WAY, BINGEN, WA, 98605

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: $172,095,867

Exercised Options: $148,729,031

Current Obligation: $150,421,894

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 16

Total Subaward Amount: $4,479,688

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0001912D0011

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline