Department of Defense awards $177.9M for armored vehicle components, with GM GDLS Defense Group securing the contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $177,934,895 ($177.9M)

Contractor: GM Gdls Defense Group, L.L.C.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-03-21

End Date: 2009-08-31

Contract Duration: 894 days

Daily Burn Rate: $199.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 17

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 1" SLAT ARMOR & HEADLIGHT KITS

Place of Performance

Location: STERLING HEIGHTS, MACOMB County, MICHIGAN, 48310

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $177.9 million to GM GDLS DEFENSE GROUP, L.L.C. for work described as: 1" SLAT ARMOR & HEADLIGHT KITS Key points: 1. Contract value of $177.9 million for specialized vehicle components indicates significant investment in military hardware. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. A duration of 894 days points to a substantial, multi-year project. 4. The 'MI' (Michigan) state code suggests a concentration of this defense manufacturing activity within the state. 5. The 'COST PLUS FIXED FEE' contract type implies potential for cost overruns, requiring close oversight. 6. The award amount is substantial, but context on the number of units or specific components is needed for a full value assessment.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $177.9 million for 'SLAT ARMOR & HEADLIGHT KITS' is a significant sum. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for armored vehicle upgrades or component manufacturing is difficult without more specific details on the quantity and type of kits. The 'COST PLUS FIXED FEE' structure, while common in defense, carries inherent risks of cost escalation compared to fixed-price contracts. The reported 'br' (base contract value?) of $199,032 seems disproportionately low compared to the total award, suggesting this delivery order represents a substantial portion of a larger contract or a significant modification.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

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 a bid. The presence of 17 delivery orders suggests a potentially active and competitive environment for these components over the contract's life. However, the number of bidders is not explicitly stated, which would provide a clearer picture of the actual competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to better pricing and innovation. It ensures that the government explores a wide range of options before awarding a contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army, receiving upgraded or newly equipped armored vehicles. The contract delivers essential components for military vehicles, enhancing their protection and functionality. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in Michigan, where the contractor is based, potentially supporting local jobs. Workforce implications include employment for skilled manufacturing and engineering roles within the defense industry.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can lead to higher final costs than fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently.
The significant difference between the 'br' and the total award suggests potential for scope creep or evolving requirements.
Lack of specific details on the 'SLAT ARMOR & HEADLIGHT KITS' makes it difficult to assess the true value for money.
The contract duration of 894 days requires sustained oversight to ensure performance and cost control.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a fair and accessible bidding process.
The contractor, GM GDLS Defense Group, is a known entity in defense manufacturing, suggesting established capabilities.
The existence of 17 delivery orders implies a sustained need and potentially successful past performance within this contract vehicle.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense Industrial Base, specifically the manufacturing of military armored vehicles and components. The market is characterized by high barriers to entry, specialized technology, and significant government investment. Spending in this sector is driven by national security needs and technological advancements in warfare. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for vehicle armor, survivability systems, and related military hardware.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses ('sb': false). There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without this data, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business defense ecosystem, though large prime contracts often involve subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices. Specific oversight mechanisms would include contract performance reviews, financial audits, and quality assurance inspections. The 'COST PLUS FIXED FEE' nature necessitates rigorous financial oversight to monitor costs and ensure the fixed fee remains appropriate. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Armored Vehicle Procurement
Military Vehicle Components
Defense Manufacturing
Army Vehicle Modernization
Survivability Systems

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage potential cost overruns.
Significant difference between base contract value and total award suggests potential scope expansion.
Lack of specific quantity and technical details hinders full value assessment.
Contract duration necessitates ongoing performance monitoring.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $177.9 million to GM GDLS DEFENSE GROUP, L.L.C.. 1" SLAT ARMOR & HEADLIGHT KITS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GM GDLS DEFENSE GROUP, L.L.C..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $177.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-03-21. End: 2009-08-31.

What is the specific nature and quantity of the 'SLAT ARMOR & HEADLIGHT KITS' being procured under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature or quantity of the 'SLAT ARMOR & HEADLIGHT KITS.' This information is crucial for a comprehensive value-for-money assessment. 'Slat armor' typically refers to external cage-like armor designed to protect against shaped charges, while headlight kits would be specialized, potentially hardened, lighting systems. Without knowing the number of kits or the specific technical requirements, it's impossible to determine if the $177.9 million award represents a fair price per unit or a reasonable total cost for the delivered capability.

How does the 'COST PLUS FIXED FEE' (CPFF) structure impact the potential final cost and risk for the government?

A CPFF contract type means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not well-defined or involves significant uncertainty. For the government, the primary risk is cost overrun, as the final cost is not capped. Effective oversight is critical to scrutinize costs, ensure efficiency, and prevent unnecessary expenditures. The fixed fee provides the contractor with an incentive to control costs to some extent, as their profit is fixed regardless of the final cost.

What was the competitive landscape like during the bidding process for this contract, beyond it being 'full and open'?

While the contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' the data does not specify the number of bids received. A high number of bids typically indicates strong competition, which can drive down prices and encourage innovation. Conversely, a low number of bidders, even under full and open competition, might suggest market concentration or specialized requirements that limit the pool of capable contractors. Understanding the number of competitors is essential to gauge the effectiveness of the competition in achieving optimal value for the government.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar armored vehicle components or upgrades by the Department of the Army?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award and does not offer historical spending patterns. To establish such patterns, one would need to analyze past contracts for similar items (e.g., armor kits, vehicle upgrades, specialized lighting) awarded to this contractor or others within the defense sector. Analyzing trends in contract values, competition levels, and contract types over several fiscal years would reveal whether this $177.9 million award is consistent with historical spending, unusually high, or indicative of a new program or increased demand.

What is the track record of GM GDLS Defense Group in delivering similar defense components on time and within budget?

The data indicates GM GDLS Defense Group, L.L.C. is the contractor. While the contract duration is 894 days and there are 17 delivery orders, the provided snippet does not detail the contractor's performance history, such as on-time delivery rates or cost performance on this or other contracts. A thorough assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract close-out data, and any documented issues or successes related to GM GDLS Defense Group's previous work for the Department of Defense or other government agencies.

How does the 'br' (base contract value?) of $199,032 compare to the total award of $177,934,895?

The discrepancy between the reported 'br' (likely representing a base contract value or initial award) of $199,032 and the total award of $177,934,895 is substantial. This suggests that the $177.9 million represents a significant increase over the initial contract value, possibly through modifications, option exercises, or a series of delivery orders that cumulatively reached this amount. It implies that the scope or quantity of work significantly expanded beyond the initial baseline, warranting scrutiny into the reasons for this expansion and its cost implications.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing › Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MOTOR VEHICLES, CYCLES, TRAILERS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 17

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 38500 MOUND RD, STERLING HEIGHTS, MI, 48310

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $177,934,895

Exercised Options: $177,934,895

Current Obligation: $177,934,895

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DAAE0700DM051

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline