Navy training lifecycle readiness contract awarded to Frontier Technology Inc. for over $17.3M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,388,322 ($17.4M)

Contractor: Frontier Technology Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2020-09-25

End Date: 2024-09-24

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: R&D

Official Description: SBIR PHASE III US NAVY TRAINING LIFECYCLE READINESS MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20376

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $17.4 million to FRONTIER TECHNOLOGY INC for work described as: SBIR PHASE III US NAVY TRAINING LIFECYCLE READINESS MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING Key points: 1. Contract awarded via a sole-source justification, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies. 2. The contract duration of 1460 days suggests a long-term need for these services. 3. Performance is in Washington D.C., a high-cost area, which may influence overall expenditures. 4. The contract type is Time and Materials, which can lead to cost overruns if not closely managed. 5. No small business set-aside was utilized, indicating a focus on specialized capabilities. 6. The NAICS code 541715 points to significant research and development activities.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of competitive bids and the specific nature of R&D services. The Time and Materials contract type, while flexible, carries inherent risks of cost escalation compared to fixed-price arrangements. Without comparable sole-source awards or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess if the $17.3M represents a fair price for the lifecycle readiness management and monitoring services provided to the Navy.

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 approach is typically justified when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or proprietary technology required for the service. The lack of competition means there was no direct price pressure from other bidders, which could potentially lead to higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit opportunities for taxpayers to benefit from competitive pricing, potentially resulting in higher overall expenditure for the government.

Public Impact

The U.S. Navy benefits from enhanced training lifecycle readiness management and monitoring. Services delivered are critical for maintaining operational effectiveness and personnel proficiency. The geographic impact is primarily within Washington D.C., where the contractor is located. Workforce implications include specialized roles in R&D, program management, and technical support.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing, potentially increasing costs.
Time and Materials contract type offers less cost certainty than fixed-price.
Lack of transparency in pricing due to sole-source justification.
Potential for scope creep with a long-duration contract.
Limited visibility into specific performance metrics and outcomes.

Positive Signals

Addresses a critical Navy requirement for training lifecycle readiness.
Contract awarded to a single entity suggests specialized expertise.
Long contract duration indicates a sustained need and potential for stable support.
Focus on R&D may lead to innovative solutions for training challenges.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The market for defense-related R&D services is substantial, driven by the need for technological advancement and operational superiority. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish precisely due to the specialized nature of training lifecycle management, but significant government investment is typical in this domain to ensure military readiness.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor, Frontier Technology Inc., is expected to perform the majority of the work. The absence of small business participation in this specific award means that opportunities within this contract are not directly benefiting the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the General Services Administration (GSA) and the U.S. Navy contracting officers. Accountability measures would be defined within the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, but contract modifications and performance reviews would be subject to internal government oversight.

Related Government Programs

Navy Training Systems
Defense Research and Development
Lifecycle Management Services
Federal IT and R&D Contracts
General Services Administration Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Time and Materials contract type
Long contract duration
Lack of competitive bidding

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $17.4 million to FRONTIER TECHNOLOGY INC. SBIR PHASE III US NAVY TRAINING LIFECYCLE READINESS MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FRONTIER TECHNOLOGY INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-09-25. End: 2024-09-24.

What is the specific nature of the 'training lifecycle readiness management and monitoring' services provided under this contract?

The contract, described as 'SBIR PHASE III US NAVY TRAINING LIFECYCLE READINESS MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING,' likely involves the development, implementation, and oversight of systems and processes that ensure the Navy's training programs are effective, up-to-date, and aligned with operational readiness requirements. This could encompass data analysis, performance tracking, curriculum management, simulation integration, and continuous improvement initiatives. The 'SBIR Phase III' designation suggests that the work builds upon research and development funded through the Small Business Innovation Research program, indicating a focus on transitioning innovative technologies into practical applications for the Navy.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis, and what are the implications for cost?

The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, indicated by 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION.' This implies that the General Services Administration (GSA), on behalf of the Navy, determined that Frontier Technology Inc. was the only responsible source capable of providing the required services. Justifications for sole-source awards often cite unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent needs where competition is not feasible. The primary implication for cost is the absence of competitive pressure, which can potentially lead to higher prices than if multiple vendors had bid. Without a competitive process, it is harder to ascertain if the $17.3M represents the best value achievable.

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type affect cost control and risk for this $17.3M award?

The contract is a 'TIME AND MATERIALS' (PT) type, meaning the government pays the contractor for direct labor hours at specified fixed hourly rates and for the actual cost of materials. This contract type offers flexibility, allowing for adjustments in scope as needs evolve, which can be beneficial for R&D projects. However, T&M contracts carry a higher risk of cost overruns for the government compared to fixed-price contracts, as the final cost is not predetermined. Effective cost control relies heavily on robust government oversight, including monitoring labor hours, material costs, and ensuring that the work performed is necessary and efficient. The duration of 1460 days (approximately 4 years) amplifies this risk if not managed diligently.

What is Frontier Technology Inc.'s track record with similar government contracts, particularly with the Navy or in R&D?

Information regarding Frontier Technology Inc.'s specific track record with similar government contracts, especially with the Navy or within the R&D sector for training lifecycle management, is not detailed in the provided data. The 'SBIR PHASE III' designation suggests a history of innovation and development, likely originating from earlier SBIR phases. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, contract history databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov), and any publicly available project outcomes. Without this detailed history, it's difficult to gauge their experience and success in delivering comparable services.

Are there any comparable federal spending benchmarks for 'training lifecycle readiness management and monitoring' services?

Establishing precise federal spending benchmarks for 'training lifecycle readiness management and monitoring' is challenging due to the specialized and often unique nature of defense-related R&D and training support services. While the NAICS code 541715 covers a broad range of R&D, the specific application to military training lifecycle management is niche. General benchmarks for R&D services or IT support within the defense sector might exist, but they would not capture the full scope of this contract. The sole-source nature of this award further complicates benchmarking, as there are no direct competitive comparisons. Analysis would likely require examining similar sole-source awards for highly specialized defense support or R&D contracts.

What are the potential risks associated with the 1460-day duration of this contract?

A contract duration of 1460 days (approximately 4 years) presents several potential risks. Firstly, technology and operational requirements can evolve rapidly, especially in defense R&D. A long-term contract might become outdated or less relevant if not managed with flexibility and regular reviews. Secondly, the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure, combined with a long duration, increases the risk of significant cost escalation over time if labor rates increase or if the scope of work expands without adequate controls. Thirdly, maintaining consistent oversight and engagement from the government over such an extended period can be challenging due to personnel changes and shifting priorities. Finally, long-term sole-source contracts can reduce the incentive for the contractor to innovate aggressively or seek efficiencies beyond what is contractually required.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4141 COLONEL GLENN HWY STE 140, BEAVERCREEK, OH, 45431

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $54,886,446

Exercised Options: $51,120,386

Current Obligation: $17,388,322

Actual Outlays: $15,954,758

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline