Raytheon Company awarded $38M for Computer Systems Design Services by GSA

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $37,955,907 ($38.0M)

Contractor: Raytheon Company

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2000-06-15

End Date: 2006-04-28

Contract Duration: 2,143 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.7K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20001, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $38.0 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded at a firm-fixed-price, suggesting clear cost expectations. 2. The competitive delivery order indicates a degree of market engagement. 3. Duration of over 5 years suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. Services fall under computer systems design, a critical area for federal IT infrastructure. 5. The contract was awarded by the General Services Administration, a common procurement channel. 6. The contract was not set aside for small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of approximately $38 million over its lifespan is moderate for IT services. Without specific performance metrics or comparison data for similar computer systems design services procured by GSA during that period, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm-fixed-price structure provides some cost certainty, but the lack of detailed performance benchmarks makes it difficult to gauge if the pricing was optimal or if the contractor delivered exceptional value. Further analysis would require benchmarking against similar contracts awarded around the same time.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, implying that it was competed under a broader indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar vehicle that allowed for multiple vendors. The fact that it was competed suggests that multiple bidders likely had the opportunity to submit proposals. The level of competition, while not explicitly detailed by the number of bidders, generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government compared to sole-source procurements.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a marketplace where contractors vie for the best price and performance, ultimately benefiting the government's budget.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring computer systems design services benefit from this contract. The services delivered likely support the modernization and maintenance of federal IT systems. The contract's primary geographic impact is in the District of Columbia, where the award is noted. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for IT professionals within Raytheon Company and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess contractor efficiency.
The extended duration of the contract could lead to vendor lock-in if not managed carefully.
No explicit small business subcontracting goals are indicated, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a competitive process, suggesting potential for good value.
Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability for the government.
Procurement through GSA indicates adherence to established federal acquisition procedures.

Sector Analysis

Computer systems design services are a crucial component of the federal IT landscape, encompassing the design, development, and integration of complex computing systems. The market for these services is substantial, with agencies constantly seeking to upgrade and maintain their technological infrastructure. This contract with Raytheon Company fits within the broader IT services sector, where spending is driven by the need for cybersecurity, data management, cloud migration, and system modernization. Benchmarking this contract's value against other similar IT service contracts awarded by GSA or other agencies during the early 2000s would provide further context on its relative cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor is there an indication that Raytheon Company is a small business. This means that opportunities for small businesses would primarily arise through subcontracting. Without specific subcontracting plans or goals mandated within the contract, the extent to which small businesses benefit from this award is uncertain and depends on Raytheon's internal subcontracting practices. The absence of a set-aside suggests that the primary focus was on obtaining the best solution from the available market, which may not have prioritized small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) typically employs various oversight mechanisms for its contracts, including contract officer representatives (CORs) to monitor performance and ensure compliance. As a competitive delivery order, it would fall under the standard oversight procedures of the Federal Acquisition Service. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's performance or award.

Related Government Programs

IT Services
Computer Systems Design
General Services Administration Contracts
Federal IT Modernization

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Lack of Performance Metrics
Potential for Scope Creep

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $38.0 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RAYTHEON COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $38.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-06-15. End: 2006-04-28.

What was the specific nature of the computer systems design services provided under this contract?

The data indicates the contract was for 'Computer Systems Design Services' (NAICS code 541512). While the specific details of the services rendered are not provided in the summary data, this category typically encompasses a wide range of activities. These can include analyzing user needs, designing system architecture, developing software and hardware specifications, integrating different systems, and providing technical consulting related to computer systems. Given the duration and value, it likely involved significant design and integration work for complex federal IT systems, potentially supporting agency-specific operational requirements or infrastructure upgrades.

How does the $38 million contract value compare to similar IT services contracts awarded by GSA during the 2000-2006 period?

Comparing the $38 million total award value requires access to historical contract data for the period between 2000 and 2006. Without direct comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if this was high, low, or average. However, for its time, $38 million represented a substantial investment in IT services. GSA procured a wide range of IT services, and the value of individual contracts varied significantly based on scope, duration, and complexity. To benchmark effectively, one would need to analyze contracts with similar NAICS codes (e.g., 541512, 541511, 541519) awarded by GSA or other agencies during that specific timeframe to understand the prevailing market rates and typical contract sizes for computer systems design.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or deliverables expected under this contract?

The provided summary data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or detailed deliverables for this contract. Typically, for computer systems design services, KPIs might include system uptime, response times, successful integration of components, adherence to design specifications, and timely completion of project milestones. Deliverables would likely encompass design documents, system architecture diagrams, technical specifications, integration plans, and potentially prototypes or implemented system components. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests that the government had clear expectations for the final output, and performance would be measured against these predefined requirements.

What is Raytheon Company's track record in providing computer systems design services to the federal government?

Raytheon Company (now RTX) is a major defense contractor with a long history of providing complex technological solutions and services to the U.S. government, including extensive work in IT and systems engineering. While this specific contract was for computer systems design, Raytheon's broader portfolio includes areas like aerospace, defense electronics, and cybersecurity, all of which involve sophisticated systems design and integration. Their track record generally indicates experience with large, complex government projects. However, the success and quality of their IT-specific services, particularly in computer systems design during the early 2000s, would require a deeper dive into their performance history on similar contracts beyond this single award.

Were there any notable risks or challenges associated with this contract during its performance period?

Without specific performance reports or post-award reviews, identifying concrete risks and challenges is speculative. However, common risks in large IT design contracts include scope creep, integration issues between different system components, cybersecurity vulnerabilities, delays in delivery, and budget overruns (though less likely with FFP). Given the contract's duration (over 5 years) and the evolving nature of technology, adapting the design to new standards or threats could have been a challenge. The competitive nature of the award suggests risks were assessed during procurement, but unforeseen technical or programmatic issues could still arise during execution.

How did the 'competitive delivery order' mechanism influence the outcome of this contract?

A 'competitive delivery order' typically means that this order was placed against a pre-existing contract vehicle (like an IDIQ) that was itself competed. The delivery order itself was then competed among eligible awardees under that vehicle, or potentially competed more broadly if the vehicle allowed. This mechanism ensures that for specific task orders, the government can solicit proposals and select the best value offeror for that particular requirement. It provides flexibility while maintaining a level of competition for individual taskings, which can lead to better pricing and tailored solutions compared to simply assigning work without further competition.

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: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 12160 SUNRISE VALLEY DR, RESTON, VA, 20191

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $41,932,476

Exercised Options: $41,932,476

Current Obligation: $37,955,907

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00T99ALD0209

IDV Type: GWAC

Timeline