DoD's $14.8M DCGS-A V3.1 development and support contract awarded to Austin Info Systems, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,830,829 ($14.8M)

Contractor: Austin Info Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-05-09

End Date: 2009-04-20

Contract Duration: 712 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: IT

Official Description: DCGS-A V3.1 DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT.

Place of Performance

Location: AUSTIN, TRAVIS County, TEXAS, 78735

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.8 million to AUSTIN INFO SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: DCGS-A V3.1 DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT. Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about price discovery and potential for overpayment. 2. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) can incentivize cost overruns, requiring robust oversight. 3. Limited competition suggests potential risks of reduced innovation and less favorable terms for the government. 4. The duration of the contract (712 days) indicates a significant, ongoing need for these services. 5. The specific nature of DCGS-A V3.1 development and support points to a critical defense intelligence function. 6. The award was a delivery order, implying it was part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract, though details are not provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of approximately $14.8 million for development and support services requires careful benchmarking against similar IT development contracts. Without more information on the specific deliverables and the complexity of DCGS-A V3.1, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while allowing for flexibility, can lead to higher costs if not managed tightly, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee. This structure necessitates strong government oversight to control expenditures and ensure efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one contractor, Austin Info Systems, Inc., was solicited. This significantly limits competition and raises concerns about whether the government obtained the best possible pricing and terms. Sole-source awards are typically justified when only one source possesses the required capabilities or when urgency precludes a competitive process. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no direct price comparison or incentive for contractors to offer competitive rates.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This can result in less efficient use of public funds compared to contracts awarded through full and open competition.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense, specifically units relying on the Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) for intelligence analysis and processing. The services delivered include the development and ongoing support for a critical intelligence system, enhancing situational awareness and decision-making capabilities. The geographic impact is likely global, as DCGS-A is a widely deployed system within the Army and its intelligence components. Workforce implications include the need for specialized IT personnel to develop, maintain, and operate the DCGS-A system, both within the contractor's organization and the government.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher costs.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can incentivize cost growth if not rigorously managed.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification process.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to specialized system development.
Limited visibility into the specific technical challenges and associated costs of V3.1 development.

Positive Signals

Contract addresses a critical defense intelligence system (DCGS-A).
Award to a single vendor may indicate specialized expertise required for the system.
Delivery order structure suggests it might be part of a broader, potentially competitive IDIQ.
Fixed fee component of CPFF provides some cost predictability for the government.
The contract duration implies a sustained need and potential for long-term system improvement.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Computer Systems Design Services sector, a vital component of the broader IT industry supporting defense intelligence. The market for such specialized systems development is often characterized by a mix of large prime contractors and niche providers. Benchmarking requires comparison with other government contracts for intelligence system development and sustainment, which can be complex due to the unique requirements and security considerations inherent in defense IT.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, the contractor, Austin Info Systems, Inc., is not explicitly identified as a small business in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award was not directed towards small business participation. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the contracting officer within the Department of Defense. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure necessitates close monitoring of allowable costs and the contractor's performance against the fixed fee. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Intelligence Systems Development
Defense IT Services
Command and Control Systems
Software Development and Support
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole Source Award
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contract Type
Lack of Competition
Potential for Cost Overruns
Limited Transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.8 million to AUSTIN INFO SYSTEMS, INC.. DCGS-A V3.1 DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AUSTIN INFO SYSTEMS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-05-09. End: 2009-04-20.

What specific capabilities does DCGS-A V3.1 provide, and how critical are these to current military operations?

The Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) is a cornerstone intelligence system for the U.S. Army, designed to collect, process, exploit, and disseminate intelligence data from various sources. Version 3.1 likely represents a significant upgrade or iteration focusing on enhanced analytical tools, improved data fusion capabilities, and potentially new sensor integration. Its criticality lies in providing actionable intelligence to commanders at all echelons, enabling better situational awareness, threat assessment, and operational planning. Without DCGS-A, the Army's ability to understand the battlespace and adversary actions would be severely hampered, impacting mission success and soldier safety.

Can the value of this $14.8 million contract be benchmarked against similar sole-source IT development contracts for defense systems?

Benchmarking this $14.8 million sole-source contract is challenging without detailed knowledge of the specific development tasks, system complexity, and the contractor's labor rates and overhead structure. Sole-source awards inherently lack the price discovery mechanism of competition. However, comparisons can be made to other CPFF contracts for similar-scale intelligence system development or sustainment within the DoD. Factors like the number of developers, their seniority, the duration of development, and the novelty of the technology would influence cost. Given the sole-source nature, a premium might be expected compared to a competitively bid contract, making direct value-for-money assessment difficult without further data.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source, Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract for a critical defense system like DCGS-A?

The primary risks are twofold. Firstly, the sole-source nature eliminates competitive pressure, potentially leading to inflated pricing and less incentive for the contractor to innovate or optimize costs. The government may not be receiving the best value. Secondly, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, while providing some cost certainty with the fixed fee, reimburses the contractor for allowable costs. This can create an incentive for the contractor to incur higher costs, as their fee is fixed regardless of the total cost incurred (within contract limits). Robust government oversight is crucial to scrutinize allowable costs, prevent inefficiencies, and ensure the contractor remains focused on delivering the required capabilities within reasonable expenditure.

What is the track record of Austin Info Systems, Inc. in delivering complex defense intelligence systems?

Information regarding Austin Info Systems, Inc.'s specific track record in delivering complex defense intelligence systems like DCGS-A V3.1 is not detailed in the provided data. As this was a sole-source award, the justification likely relied on their unique qualifications or existing relationship with the government for this specific system. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance on similar contracts, including client satisfaction, adherence to schedule and budget, and technical execution. Without this historical performance data, it's difficult to fully evaluate their capability and reliability for this critical development effort.

How does the duration of this contract (712 days) align with typical development cycles for major intelligence system upgrades?

A duration of 712 days (approximately 23-24 months) for the development and support of a major intelligence system upgrade like DCGS-A V3.1 is generally within a reasonable range. Major software development projects, especially those involving complex integration, security requirements, and testing inherent in defense intelligence systems, often span multiple years. This timeframe allows for phased development, rigorous testing, user feedback incorporation, and initial operational support. Shorter durations might indicate a less complex upgrade or a focus on specific modules, while significantly longer periods could suggest scope creep, unforeseen technical challenges, or inefficient project management.

What are the potential implications of this contract on future competition for DCGS-A related services?

A sole-source award for DCGS-A V3.1 development and support could have several implications for future competition. If Austin Info Systems, Inc. develops unique expertise or proprietary knowledge during this contract, it might create a barrier for other potential competitors in subsequent procurements, potentially leading to future sole-source or limited-competition awards. Conversely, if the government establishes clear performance metrics and requirements during this contract, it could pave the way for more competitive solicitations in the future by defining the scope and expected outcomes more precisely. The government's strategy for future DCGS-A evolution will significantly shape subsequent competition dynamics.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Computer Systems Design Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: DAAB1503RT031

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Textron Inc (UEI: 001338979)

Address: 301 CAMP CRAFT RD, AUSTIN, TX, 78746

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,841,179

Exercised Options: $14,841,179

Current Obligation: $14,830,829

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W909MY04D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline