Raytheon Support Services awarded $152M contract for M119 support, with a 1791-day duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,947,677 ($30.9M)

Contractor: Raytheon Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1998-11-04

End Date: 2003-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,791 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE)

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 199904!2100!6010!AE07 !USA TANK-AUTOMOTIVE & ARMAMENTS !DAAE0799CQ002 !A!*!P00003 !19981104!19990930!152160669!802675199!001339159!N!3T286!RAYTHEON SUPPORT SERVICES COMP!2 WAYSIDE RD !BURLINGTON !MA!01803!84000!099!26!WARREN !MACOMB !MICHIGAN !0001!+000000265310!N!N!000000000000!M119!OPERATION/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS!S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8744!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!A !U!J!2!003!B!* !C!N!Z!* !* !N!C!*!A!A!A!A!A!*!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: WARREN, MACOMB County, MICHIGAN, 48089

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $30.9 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY for work described as: 199904!2100!6010!AE07 !USA TANK-AUTOMOTIVE & ARMAMENTS !DAAE0799CQ002 !A!*!P00003 !19981104!19990930!152160669!802675199!001339159!N!3T286!RAYTHEON SUPPORT SERVICES COMP!2 WAYSIDE RD !BURLINGTON !MA!01803!84000!099!26!WARREN !MACOMB… Key points: 1. Contract value of $152.17 million over nearly five years suggests a significant investment in support services. 2. Full and open competition indicates a potentially competitive bidding process, which could lead to better pricing. 3. The contract's duration of 1791 days (approx. 4.9 years) points to a long-term need for these services. 4. The award to Raytheon Support Services, a known entity in defense contracting, provides some level of performance predictability. 5. The specific services, described as 'OPERATION/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS', are broad and require further detail for precise performance assessment. 6. The contract's focus on administrative and service buildings may indicate a need for facility management or operational support within defense installations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $152.17 million over approximately 4.9 years averages to about $31 million per year. Without specific details on the services rendered or comparable contracts for similar administrative and building support, it is difficult to definitively benchmark the value. However, the duration and scope suggest a substantial commitment. Further analysis would require understanding the specific deliverables and comparing them to industry standards for facility operations and administrative support within a defense context.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bidders indicates a degree of competition, which is generally favorable for price discovery and potentially achieving better value. However, the specific number of bidders is relatively low for a contract of this magnitude, and without knowing the qualifications of the other bidders, it's hard to fully assess the competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with a limited number of bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple companies to offer their best pricing and terms to secure the contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of the Army facilities and personnel requiring administrative and operational support services. Services delivered include support for 'OPERATION/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS,' which could encompass a range of functions from facility maintenance to logistical support. The geographic impact is centered in Michigan, as indicated by the contractor's location, but the ultimate reach of the services depends on where the supported buildings are located. Workforce implications may include employment opportunities for individuals in administrative, operational, and potentially maintenance roles within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The broad description of services ('OPERATION/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS') lacks specificity, making it challenging to assess performance metrics and ensure accountability.
The contract's duration of nearly five years could lead to cost increases if market conditions or service needs change significantly over time.
Without detailed performance data, it's difficult to ascertain if the contractor is delivering optimal value for the significant investment.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a potentially robust bidding process.
The contract is with Raytheon Support Services, a company with established experience in defense contracting, which may imply a degree of reliability.
The contract's length indicates a stable, long-term requirement, providing predictability for both the government and the contractor.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense sector, specifically focusing on support services for administrative and operational buildings. The defense sector is characterized by significant government spending on a wide array of goods and services, often involving complex logistics and long-term sustainment. Contracts for facility operations and administrative support are common across various government agencies, with spending benchmarks varying widely based on the scale and nature of the facilities managed.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication in the provided data that this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. The prime contractor, Raytheon Support Services, is a large entity. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any portion of the work was subcontracted to small businesses, which is a common practice in larger federal contracts to promote small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's statement of work and performance standards. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports and Inspector General oversight would depend on specific agency policies and any identified issues.

Related Government Programs

Defense Administrative Support Contracts
Facility Operations and Maintenance Services
Government Building Management
Army Logistics Support
Defense Operational Services

Risk Flags

Lack of Specificity in Service Description
Potential for Cost Escalation Over Long Duration
Limited Number of Bidders for a Large Contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $30.9 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY. 199904!2100!6010!AE07 !USA TANK-AUTOMOTIVE & ARMAMENTS !DAAE0799CQ002 !A!*!P00003 !19981104!19990930!152160669!802675199!001339159!N!3T286!RAYTHEON SUPPORT SERVICES COMP!2 WAYSIDE RD !BURLINGTON !MA!01803!84000!099!26!WARREN !MACOMB !MICHIGAN !0001!+000000265310!N!N!000000000000!M119!OPERATION/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS!S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8744!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!A !U!J!2!0

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RAYTHEON COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $30.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1998-11-04. End: 2003-09-30.

What specific services are included under 'OPERATION/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS' for this contract?

The provided data offers a high-level categorization of 'OPERATION/OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE & SERVICE BUILDINGS' without detailing the specific tasks. Typically, such a description could encompass a wide range of services including, but not limited to, facility maintenance and repair, janitorial services, groundskeeping, security support, administrative assistance, logistical coordination, and potentially minor construction or renovation oversight. To understand the precise scope, one would need to consult the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS), which would itemize the required deliverables, performance standards, and reporting requirements. Without this detailed information, assessing the value and effectiveness of the contract remains challenging.

How does the $152.17 million contract value compare to similar support service contracts within the Department of Defense?

Benchmarking this $152.17 million contract requires comparing it to similar service contracts within the Department of Defense (DoD) that cover administrative and building operations. The average annual value of this contract is approximately $31 million ($152.17M / 4.9 years). The DoD awards numerous contracts for facility management, base operations support, and administrative services, with values ranging from thousands to billions of dollars. Without knowing the specific geographic locations, the size and type of facilities managed, and the exact service mix, a direct comparison is difficult. However, for a contract spanning nearly five years and involving comprehensive support, $31 million annually is within the expected range for large-scale support operations, though specific market rates and service complexities could make it appear high or low.

What is Raytheon Support Services' track record with similar government contracts?

Raytheon Support Services, as part of the larger Raytheon Company (now RTX Corporation), has a substantial track record in providing a wide array of services to the U.S. government, particularly within the defense sector. Their experience often includes complex logistics, base operations support, technical services, and facility management. While this specific contract focuses on administrative and building support, Raytheon's broader portfolio suggests they possess the organizational capacity and expertise to manage such requirements. A deeper dive into their past performance evaluations, contract history, and any past performance issues or commendations related to similar service contracts would provide a more precise assessment of their reliability and effectiveness in this domain.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-duration contract like this (1791 days)?

Long-duration contracts, such as this 1791-day (approximately 4.9 years) award, carry several potential risks. Firstly, there's the risk of cost escalation; if market prices for labor or materials increase significantly over the contract period, the government may end up paying more than initially anticipated, especially if the contract has limited price adjustment clauses. Secondly, there's the risk of service obsolescence or changing requirements; the needs of the government might evolve, making the contracted services less relevant or requiring modifications that could be costly to implement. Thirdly, contractor performance can degrade over time, or the contractor might become complacent due to the long-term nature of the award. Finally, a long commitment reduces the government's flexibility to switch to potentially better or more cost-effective solutions that might emerge during the contract's term.

How does the 'full and open competition' with 3 bidders impact taxpayer value?

Awarding a contract under 'full and open competition' is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it allows any responsible source to compete, theoretically leading to the best possible offers. In this case, having 3 bidders suggests a level of competition existed. While more bidders often lead to greater price pressure, three bidders can still provide sufficient competition to drive down costs and encourage innovation. The key determinant of taxpayer value here is not just the number of bidders, but the quality of the competition, the government's negotiation strategy, and the specific requirements of the contract. If the bidding process was robust and the government effectively leveraged the competition, taxpayers are likely to receive good value. However, if the market for these specific services is limited, or if the requirements were overly restrictive, three bidders might represent the extent of viable competition, potentially limiting the downward pressure on price.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE) (2)

Contractor Details

Address: 2 WAYSIDE RD, BURLINGTON, MA, 06

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline