Transportation awards $176M for telecommunications services, extending previous orders with Harris Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $176,212,141 ($176.2M)

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: $36.5K/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::CL::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: MELBOURNE, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32904

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $176.2 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 prior funding. 2. The contract is structured as a Fixed Price Incentive, aiming to balance cost control with performance. 3. Competition was conducted under full and open procedures, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding environment. 4. The duration of the contract extends to late 2025, indicating a long-term need for these services. 5. The services are categorized under Telecommunications Resellers, a broad sector with diverse market dynamics. 6. The award is a Delivery Order, suggesting it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total value of $176.2 million across multiple delivery orders for telecommunications services requires careful benchmarking. Without specific details on the services rendered or the base contract, it's challenging to assess value for money definitively. However, the fixed-price incentive structure suggests an attempt to manage costs while ensuring performance. Comparing this to similar large-scale telecommunications procurements by the government would be necessary for a more precise valuation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service offerings for the government. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition suggests a potentially robust selection process.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, driving down prices through market forces and increasing the likelihood of selecting the best value solution.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the primary beneficiary, likely utilizing these telecommunications services for its operational needs. The services provided are essential for maintaining and enhancing the agency's communication infrastructure. The contract is geographically focused on Florida, as indicated by the state and station codes. The telecommunications sector supports a significant workforce, and this contract contributes to that ecosystem.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the telecommunications services.
The extended duration of the contract could lead to vendor lock-in if not managed carefully.
The total value of $176 million warrants close monitoring to ensure continued cost-effectiveness.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
Fixed Price Incentive contract type aims to align contractor and government interests.
The contract builds upon previous delivery orders, indicating a stable and ongoing need for the services.

Sector Analysis

The telecommunications services sector is a critical component of government operations, encompassing a wide range of technologies and providers. This contract, falling under NAICS code 517310 (Telecommunications Resellers), likely involves the provision of voice, data, and potentially other communication services. The market is characterized by both large established players and specialized resellers. Government spending in this area is substantial, supporting everything from basic connectivity to advanced network solutions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb fields) was not a specific set-aside criterion for this contract. Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses through set-asides is likely minimal. However, the prime contractor, Harris Corporation, may engage small businesses as subcontractors, which would be a secondary avenue for small business involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a division of the Department of Transportation. The contract's fixed-price incentive structure implies performance-based oversight to ensure milestones are met and costs remain within agreed-upon parameters. Transparency would be enhanced through contract award databases and potentially through Inspector General reviews if any performance or financial irregularities arise.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in due to long-term contract.
Risk of technological obsolescence if contract doesn't adapt to new technologies.
Need for robust performance monitoring to ensure value for money.
Limited insight into specific services and performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $176.2 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::CL::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 $176.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

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

What specific telecommunications services are being procured under this delivery order, and how do they align with the FAA's mission?

The provided data indicates the procurement is for 'FTI Telecommunications Services.' While the exact nature of these services isn't detailed, they fall under NAICS code 517310 (Telecommunications Resellers). This suggests services could range from voice and data transmission, network management, internet access, or specialized communication solutions. For the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), such services are critical for air traffic control, communication systems, internal operations, and data management. The continuity indicated by succeeding previous orders (0004 and 0015) implies these services are essential and integrated into the FAA's ongoing operational framework. A deeper dive into the specific Statement of Work (SOW) for each delivery order would clarify the precise services and their direct contribution to the FAA's safety and efficiency mandates.

How does the $176.2 million total value compare to historical spending on similar telecommunications services by the FAA or other federal agencies?

The total award of $176.2 million for telecommunications services over the contract period (ending September 2025) represents a substantial investment. To benchmark this value, one would need to compare it against similar large-scale telecommunications procurements by agencies like the FAA, Department of Defense, or other entities with significant communication infrastructure needs. Factors such as the scope of services (e.g., bandwidth, geographic coverage, technology type), contract duration, and the competitive landscape at the time of award are crucial for a fair comparison. Without access to detailed historical spending data and specific service details for this contract, a precise comparison is difficult. However, government-wide spending on telecommunications is in the billions annually, suggesting this contract is significant but likely within the expected range for a major agency's needs.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with this Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract, and how is performance being measured?

The provided data specifies the contract type as 'FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE' (pt: "FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE"), but it does not detail the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or the mechanisms for performance measurement. In an FPI contract, the government and contractor agree on target costs, target profits, and a price ceiling. Performance incentives are typically tied to achieving certain cost, schedule, or technical objectives. For telecommunications services, KPIs could include network uptime, data transmission speeds, latency, service availability, response times for outages, and adherence to security protocols. The 'incentive' aspect suggests that exceeding performance targets could lead to higher profits for the contractor, while failing to meet them could result in reduced profit or penalties, up to the price ceiling. Detailed oversight and reporting would be necessary to track these KPIs.

What is the track record of Harris Corporation in delivering telecommunications services to the federal government, particularly for the FAA?

Harris Corporation (now L3Harris Technologies) is a well-established defense contractor with a significant presence in providing technology and communication solutions to the U.S. government. Their track record includes extensive work in areas such as command and control, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and enterprise IT services. While specific details on their performance for this particular telecommunications services contract (Delivery Orders 0004, 0015, and the current one) are not in the provided data, Harris generally has a history of managing large, complex government contracts. Their experience suggests a capability to handle the technical and logistical demands of providing telecommunications services. However, a comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract close-out reports, and any documented issues or successes related to their government contracts.

Given the contract's duration and value, what are the potential risks associated with vendor lock-in or technological obsolescence?

The contract's duration, extending to September 2025, and its substantial value of $176.2 million do present potential risks. Vendor lock-in is a concern because the FAA may become heavily reliant on Harris Corporation's specific infrastructure, processes, and support, making it difficult and costly to switch providers in the future. This reliance can reduce bargaining power in subsequent contract negotiations. Technological obsolescence is another risk; telecommunications technology evolves rapidly. If the contract doesn't adequately account for upgrades or incorporate flexibility to adopt newer, more efficient technologies, the FAA could end up using outdated systems, potentially impacting performance and security. The fixed-price incentive structure might not inherently incentivize rapid adoption of new tech unless explicitly built into the performance metrics or incentive clauses.

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: $3,549,252,981

Exercised Options: $176,375,121

Current Obligation: $176,212,141

Actual Outlays: $70,767,689

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTFA0102D03006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline