Department of Defense awards $260M for Common Remotely Operated Weapons Stations (CROWS) under firm-fixed-price contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $259,759,020 ($259.8M)

Contractor: Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-12-23

End Date: 2010-11-03

Contract Duration: 315 days

Daily Burn Rate: $824.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: DELIVERY ORDER 0039 IS FOR COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION. (CROWS)

Place of Performance

Location: JOHNSTOWN, CAMBRIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 15904, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $259.8 million to KONGSBERG DEFENCE & AEROSPACE AS for work described as: DELIVERY ORDER 0039 IS FOR COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION. (CROWS) Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single, established defense contractor, suggesting a focus on specialized capabilities. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs for the Department of Defense. 3. Delivery order issued under a larger contract vehicle, indicating potential for follow-on work and scalability. 4. The contract's duration of approximately one year suggests a need for timely delivery of critical equipment. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334511 points to a specialized manufacturing sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award amount of $259,759,020 for the Common Remotely Operated Weapons Station (CROWS) program appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar defense procurement contracts for weapon systems requires detailed analysis of system complexity, quantity, and technological sophistication. However, the firm-fixed-price contract type suggests an effort to establish a predictable cost ceiling for the government. Further analysis would involve comparing the per-unit cost of the CROWS system to industry standards and other government procurements of comparable systems to ascertain the overall value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data does not specify the number of bidders, but full and open competition generally fosters a competitive environment that can lead to better pricing and innovation. The fact that it was competed openly suggests that the government sought the best available solution and price from the market.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and high-quality goods or services, maximizing the return on investment for public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will utilize the CROWS for enhanced situational awareness and defensive capabilities. The contract delivers advanced weapon station systems, likely improving the effectiveness and safety of ground vehicles. The contract is associated with a Pennsylvania-based facility, suggesting potential local economic impact and job creation in that region. This procurement supports the modernization of military equipment, ensuring the armed forces have access to state-of-the-art technology.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the firm-fixed-price contract does not adequately account for all production variables.
Dependence on a single contractor for a critical defense system could pose supply chain risks.
The relatively short delivery period might strain production capacity and lead to rushed manufacturing.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process that likely identified a capable supplier.
The award to a known defense contractor implies a track record of delivering similar systems.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector is characterized by high-value, technologically advanced procurements. The manufacturing of weapon systems falls under the broader category of defense electronics and ordnance. Spending in this area is driven by national security needs and technological advancements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for similar weapon platforms, targeting systems, and vehicle integration solutions within the Department of Defense and allied nations.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses through set-asides is likely minimal. However, the prime contractor, Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill aspects of the contract, contributing indirectly to the small business ecosystem. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be necessary to fully assess the impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are embedded within the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified goods. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS-NG, which record award details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected during the contract's performance or execution.

Related Government Programs

Department of the Army Weapon Systems Procurement
Department of Defense Vehicle Modernization Programs
Remotely Operated Weapons Systems Procurement
Defense Electronics Manufacturing
Tactical Vehicle Systems

Risk Flags

Potential for supply chain disruption due to reliance on a single manufacturer.
Risk of technical obsolescence if the system's technology is not future-proofed.
Contract performance risk if unforeseen production challenges arise under fixed-price terms.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $259.8 million to KONGSBERG DEFENCE & AEROSPACE AS. DELIVERY ORDER 0039 IS FOR COMMON REMOTELY OPERATED WEAPONS STATION. (CROWS)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KONGSBERG DEFENCE & AEROSPACE AS.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $259.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-12-23. End: 2010-11-03.

What is the historical spending trend for Common Remotely Operated Weapons Stations (CROWS) by the Department of Defense?

Analyzing historical spending on CROWS requires accessing contract data over multiple fiscal years. While this specific award is for approximately $260 million, understanding the trend involves looking at prior awards for CROWS or similar systems. Factors influencing spending include technological upgrades, battlefield requirements, and the number of units procured. A review of past contract awards would reveal if this $260 million represents a significant increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in this capability. It's also important to note if this is a new program or an established one with recurring orders, which would indicate consistent or fluctuating demand.

How does the unit cost of the CROWS system compare to similar systems procured by other military branches or allied nations?

To benchmark the unit cost of the CROWS, we would need to identify the exact quantity of systems procured under this $260 million award and divide it by the total cost. Then, this per-unit cost would be compared against publicly available data for similar remotely operated weapon stations acquired by other U.S. military branches (e.g., Navy, Air Force) or international partners. Factors such as system features, integration complexity, and the scale of procurement significantly influence unit costs. A higher unit cost might be justified by superior technology, greater functionality, or smaller order quantities, while a lower cost could indicate economies of scale or less advanced features.

What is Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS's track record with Department of Defense contracts, particularly for weapon systems?

Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace AS is a known entity in the defense sector, and their track record with the Department of Defense (DoD) for weapon systems would be assessed by reviewing their past contract awards. This includes examining the value, type, and performance history of previous contracts. Key indicators of a strong track record include successful delivery, adherence to schedule and budget, and positive performance reviews. For this specific CROWS contract, the DoD's decision to award it under full and open competition to Kongsberg suggests confidence in their capabilities and past performance. A deeper dive would involve looking for any past issues, contract disputes, or performance failures.

What are the primary performance risks associated with the delivery and integration of the CROWS system?

Performance risks for the CROWS system could include technical challenges in meeting stringent military specifications, potential delays in manufacturing or delivery schedules, and issues related to system integration with existing military platforms. Given the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract, there's also a risk that the contractor might face financial strain if unforeseen production costs arise. Furthermore, the operational effectiveness and reliability of the system in diverse combat environments represent a critical performance aspect. The government's oversight and the contractor's quality assurance processes are key to mitigating these risks.

How has the demand for remotely operated weapons systems evolved within the Department of Defense over the last decade?

The demand for remotely operated weapons systems (ROWS), including CROWS, has likely seen a significant increase over the last decade. This trend is driven by several factors: the desire to reduce risk to personnel by keeping them out of direct harm's way, advancements in robotics and sensor technology enabling more sophisticated remote operation, and the need for enhanced precision and situational awareness on the battlefield. Military branches are increasingly integrating these systems onto various platforms, from ground vehicles to naval vessels. Analyzing contract awards over time would quantify this demand, showing growth in program funding and the number of systems being procured.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT COMPONENTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Kongsberg Gruppen ASA (UEI: 518910914)

Address: KIRKEG?RDSVEIEN 45, KONGSBERG

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $259,759,020

Exercised Options: $259,759,020

Current Obligation: $259,759,020

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15QKN07D0018

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline