GBS TO 20 NAVY contract awarded to SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC for $2.7M, with a 300-day duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,703,572 ($2.7M)

Contractor: SI2 Technologies, Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2025-07-07

End Date: 2026-05-03

Contract Duration: 300 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: GBS TO 20 NAVY

Place of Performance

Location: NASHUA, HILLSBOROUGH County, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 03062

State: New Hampshire Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $2.7 million to SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC for work described as: GBS TO 20 NAVY Key points: 1. Value for money assessed based on contract type and duration. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a sole-source award, potentially impacting price. 3. Risk indicators include the sole-source nature and fixed-price contract. 4. Performance context is a delivery order under a larger contract. 5. Sector positioning within Communications Equipment Manufacturing. 6. Spending context is a single delivery order, not total contract value.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $2.7M for a 300-day period suggests a moderate per-day expenditure. Without comparable sole-source awards or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, but the absence of competition limits the ability to benchmark pricing against market alternatives. Further analysis would require understanding the specific equipment and services procured.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This typically occurs when a specific vendor possesses unique capabilities or when circumstances necessitate a rapid procurement. The lack of competition means that price discovery through market forces was not utilized, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple bids had been solicited.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not have received the benefit of competitive pricing, as the government did not have multiple offers to choose from. This can result in a higher effective cost for the goods or services acquired.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the U.S. Navy, receiving essential communications equipment. Services delivered include the provision of specific communications hardware. Geographic impact is likely concentrated around Navy installations where the equipment is deployed. Workforce implications are minimal for the government, but the contractor's workforce is engaged.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing benefits.
Lack of detailed cost breakdown hinders value assessment.
Potential for higher costs due to absence of competition.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Delivery order under an existing contract may indicate established relationship and streamlined process.
Specific equipment for Navy operations ensures mission support.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under the 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' category (NAICS 334290). This sector encompasses a wide range of communication devices and systems. The market size for defense-related communications equipment is substantial, driven by ongoing modernization and operational needs of military branches. This specific contract likely supports a niche requirement within the Navy's broader communication infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside. There is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses within the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore likely negligible for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the General Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified goods. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award and the absence of publicly available detailed justifications.

Related Government Programs

Navy Communications Systems
Defense Communications Equipment
GSA Schedule Contracts
Sole-Source Procurements

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may lead to higher costs.
Lack of competition limits price benchmarking.
Limited public data on specific equipment and justification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $2.7 million to SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. GBS TO 20 NAVY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-07-07. End: 2026-05-03.

What is the specific nature of the 'GBS TO 20 NAVY' requirement and why was it deemed sole-source?

The 'GBS TO 20 NAVY' likely refers to a specific line item or task order under a broader GSA Schedule contract (General Business Services or similar) designated for the Navy. The sole-source justification is critical here; it implies that SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. is the only known source capable of meeting the Navy's unique requirements, possibly due to proprietary technology, specialized expertise, or urgent need where competition is impractical. Without the specific justification document, the exact reasons remain speculative, but it points to a situation where the government determined that soliciting bids from other vendors would not be feasible or advantageous.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type mitigate risk for the government in this sole-source scenario?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is advantageous for the government, especially in sole-source situations, because it establishes a ceiling on the total cost the government will pay. The contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. This means that SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. must deliver the specified communications equipment within the agreed-upon price, regardless of their own internal costs. This provides budget certainty for the Navy and GSA, preventing unexpected increases in expenditure. While it doesn't address the potential for an inflated initial price due to lack of competition, it does lock in the cost for the defined scope of work.

What are the potential implications of a sole-source award on the price paid by the government compared to a competitive bid?

Sole-source awards generally carry a higher risk of inflated pricing compared to competitive bids. When multiple companies vie for a contract, they are incentivized to offer their most competitive prices to win the business. In a sole-source scenario, the government lacks this leverage. The awarded contractor may price the goods or services based on their perceived value or cost-plus considerations, without the pressure to undercut competitors. Therefore, the $2.7 million awarded to SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. might be higher than what could have been achieved through a full and open competition, assuming comparable offerings existed.

What is the typical role of the General Services Administration (GSA) in managing contracts like this for the Navy?

The GSA, through its Federal Acquisition Service (FAS), often acts as a procurement agent for other federal agencies, including the Navy. GSA Schedules are pre-negotiated contracts that allow agencies to purchase a wide range of supplies and services from approved vendors at established prices. In this case, GSA likely awarded the underlying GSA Schedule contract to SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and the Navy then issued a Delivery Order (TO 20) against that schedule. GSA's role includes negotiating fair and reasonable pricing on the schedule, ensuring compliance, and providing acquisition expertise, while the Navy manages the specific delivery order's performance and requirements.

Are there any indicators within the data that suggest potential performance risks with SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. or this specific contract?

The provided data does not contain explicit performance risk indicators such as past performance ratings, contract modifications, or termination history for SI2 TECHNOLOGIES, INC. The contract is a firm fixed-price delivery order with a defined duration (300 days) and a specific end date (May 3, 2026), which are standard elements that help define scope and timeline. The primary risk factor identified is the sole-source nature of the award, which, as discussed, can impact price but doesn't directly correlate with the contractor's ability to perform the technical requirements. A comprehensive risk assessment would require access to contractor performance history and details of the specific equipment being procured.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - NETWORK

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: 47QFCA25Q0013

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 267 BOSTON RD, NORTH BILLERICA, MA, 01862

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,703,572

Exercised Options: $2,703,572

Current Obligation: $2,703,572

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QFCA20D0005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline