DOT awards $94.9M for telecommunications services to Harris Corporation, extending services through September 2025

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $94,934,515 ($94.9M)

Contractor: Harris Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2012-07-06

End Date: 2025-09-30

Contract Duration: 4,834 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THE PURPOSE OF THIS DELIVERY ORDER AWARD IS TO ADD FUNDING FOR FTI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. THIS DELIVERY ORDER SUCCEEDS DELIVERY ORDER 0004 AND DELIVERY ORDER 0015. DELIVERY ORDER 0004, DELIVERY ORDER 0015, AND THIS DELIVERY ORDER COMPRISE THE AGGREGATE OF FTI TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE ORDERS. TAS::69 1301::TAS IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: MELBOURNE, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32904

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $94.9 million to HARRIS CORPORATION for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF THIS DELIVERY ORDER AWARD IS TO ADD FUNDING FOR FTI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. THIS DELIVERY ORDER SUCCEEDS DELIVERY ORDER 0004 AND DELIVERY ORDER 0015. DELIVERY ORDER 0004, DELIVERY ORDER 0015, AND THIS DELIVERY ORDER COMPRISE THE AGGREGATE OF FTI TELECOMMUNIC… Key points: 1. This award represents a significant investment in telecommunications infrastructure, building upon previous orders. 2. The contract utilizes a Fixed Price Incentive pricing structure, aiming to balance cost control with performance. 3. The duration of the contract, spanning over 4,000 days, indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. The services are geographically concentrated in Florida, suggesting a specific regional focus for the telecommunications needs. 5. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further examination of subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $94.9 million for telecommunications services over its extended period appears substantial. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale telecommunications contracts is challenging without more granular data on the specific services provided. The Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract type suggests an attempt to manage costs, but the overall value for money depends heavily on the performance metrics achieved and the efficiency of the services delivered. The lack of detailed performance data makes a definitive value assessment difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. This competitive process is generally expected to drive better pricing and service offerings. However, the specific number of bidders and the details of the competition are not provided, which limits the ability to fully assess the effectiveness of the competition in achieving optimal price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is favorable for taxpayers as it typically leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of innovative solutions, potentially reducing overall costs.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential telecommunications services. These services are critical for the operation and maintenance of telecommunications infrastructure supporting aviation. The contract's geographic impact is focused on Florida, where the services are being delivered. The contract supports jobs within the telecommunications sector, particularly at Harris Corporation and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency on the number of bidders and specific competition details.
Limited insight into the performance metrics and how they influence the incentive portion of the contract.
Geographic concentration in Florida may not reflect broader national telecommunications needs.
No indication of small business subcontracting goals or achievements.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
Fixed Price Incentive contract type aims to align contractor performance with cost objectives.
Long contract duration indicates a sustained and critical need for these services.
The contract builds upon previous delivery orders, suggesting continuity and established service delivery.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Telecommunications Resellers sector, a segment of the broader Information Technology and Communications industry. This sector involves companies that provide telecommunications services, often by reselling capacity from larger carriers or integrating various communication technologies. The market for telecommunications services is highly competitive, with significant spending by government agencies to maintain robust communication networks. This award to Harris Corporation for telecommunications services is consistent with government efforts to ensure reliable and advanced communication capabilities for critical operations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This means that the competition was open to all eligible businesses, including large corporations like Harris Corporation. While this ensures broad competition, it also raises questions about opportunities for small businesses to participate, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine if there are subcontracting plans in place to engage small businesses and contribute to the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. The contract's Fixed Price Incentive structure implies performance monitoring to ensure cost and service objectives are met. Transparency regarding specific oversight mechanisms, accountability measures, and reporting requirements would be beneficial. The Inspector General for the Department of Transportation would likely have jurisdiction for audits and investigations related to potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Telecommunications Contracts
Department of Transportation IT Services
Telecommunications Resellers Federal Spending
Fixed Price Incentive Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may lead to technological obsolescence.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Geographic concentration may not address broader national needs.
No explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $94.9 million to HARRIS CORPORATION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS DELIVERY ORDER AWARD IS TO ADD FUNDING FOR FTI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. THIS DELIVERY ORDER SUCCEEDS DELIVERY ORDER 0004 AND DELIVERY ORDER 0015. DELIVERY ORDER 0004, DELIVERY ORDER 0015, AND THIS DELIVERY ORDER COMPRISE THE AGGREGATE OF FTI TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICE ORDERS. TAS::69 1301::TAS IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HARRIS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $94.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-07-06. End: 2025-09-30.

What specific telecommunications services are being provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates that the contract is for 'FTI Telecommunications Services.' However, it does not specify the exact nature of these services. This could encompass a wide range of offerings, such as voice and data transmission, network management, internet services, or specialized communication solutions. Understanding the granular details of the services is crucial for a comprehensive assessment of the contract's value and performance. Without this information, it is difficult to benchmark against similar contracts or evaluate the efficiency of the spending.

How does the per-unit cost of these telecommunications services compare to market rates or similar government contracts?

The provided data does not include per-unit cost information or specific service metrics that would allow for a direct comparison to market rates or similar government contracts. The total award amount of $94.9 million is for a duration of over 4,000 days, making a simple average cost per day or year less meaningful without understanding the volume and type of services rendered. To perform a meaningful benchmark, detailed service level agreements, usage data, and pricing structures from comparable contracts would be necessary.

What is the track record of Harris Corporation in delivering similar telecommunications services to the federal government?

Harris Corporation is a well-established defense contractor and technology company that has a significant history of providing various services and products to the federal government, including telecommunications solutions. While the specific details of their performance on this particular contract are not fully elaborated in the provided data, their general presence in the government contracting space suggests experience. A deeper dive into their past performance evaluations, contract history with the FAA and other agencies, and any reported issues would be necessary to fully assess their track record for this specific type of service.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how is performance measured under the Fixed Price Incentive structure?

The provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. However, the 'Fixed Price Incentive' (pt: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE) contract type implies that performance is tied to specific cost and delivery targets. Under an FPI contract, the contractor is incentivized to perform efficiently and meet certain objectives, with potential for profit adjustments based on performance against these targets. The effectiveness of this structure relies on clearly defined and measurable KPIs that align with the government's objectives for the telecommunications services.

How has federal spending on telecommunications services by the FAA evolved over the past five years?

The provided data focuses on a single delivery order award and does not offer historical spending trends for the FAA's telecommunications services. To analyze the evolution of federal spending in this category, one would need access to historical contract databases and budget information for the FAA over the past five years. This would involve identifying all contracts related to telecommunications, summing their values, and observing any patterns or significant changes in investment. Such an analysis would provide context for the current $94.9 million award.

Are there any identified risks associated with the long duration and significant value of this telecommunications contract?

The long duration (over 4,000 days) and substantial value ($94.9 million) of this contract do present potential risks. These include the risk of technological obsolescence, as telecommunications technology evolves rapidly. There's also a risk of cost overruns if the incentive structure is not effectively managed or if unforeseen issues arise. Furthermore, a long-term reliance on a single provider could reduce flexibility and potentially lead to complacency. Ensuring robust oversight, regular performance reviews, and contingency planning are crucial to mitigate these risks.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Wired and Wireless Telecommunications Carriers › Telecommunications Resellers

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: L3harris Technologies, Inc

Address: 243 SHOEMAKER RD, POTTSTOWN, PA, 19464

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $173,870,142

Exercised Options: $101,984,980

Current Obligation: $94,934,515

Actual Outlays: $38,017,373

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTFA0102D03006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline