DoD's $18.7M contract for navigation systems awarded to General Dynamics Government Systems in 1999, with performance through 2002

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,673,296 ($18.7M)

Contractor: GTE Government Systems Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1999-11-15

End Date: 2002-01-17

Contract Duration: 794 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200005!5700!000012!GV59 !ESC/NDK !F1962896C0126 !A!*!P00036 !19991115!20001231!001405844!116187758!001381284!N!04655!GENERAL DYNAMICS GOVERNMENT SY!77 A ST !NEEDHAM HEIGHT !MA!02494!44175!021!25!NEEDHAM HEIGHTS !NORFOLK !MASS !0001!+000000262488!N!N!000000000000!AC65!RDTE/ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION EQ-ENG/MANUF DEV !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !3669!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!D !N!J!1!001!N!1G!Z!N!Z!* !* !N!C!*!B!B!A!A!A!A!* !*!N!A!D!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: DEDHAM, NORFOLK County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02026

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.7 million to GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORP for work described as: 200005!5700!000012!GV59 !ESC/NDK !F1962896C0126 !A!*!P00036 !19991115!20001231!001405844!116187758!001381284!N!04655!GENERAL DYNAMICS GOVERNMENT SY!77 A ST !NEEDHAM HEIGHT !MA!02494!44175!021!25!NEEDHAM HEIGHTS !NORFOLK !MASS !0001!+000000262488!N!N!000000000000!AC65!RDTE/ELECTRO… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for navigation systems, indicating a need for specialized equipment in defense operations. 2. The award was a definitive contract, suggesting a long-term commitment to the selected vendor. 3. Performance period spanned over two years, allowing for development, testing, and integration. 4. The contract type was Cost Plus Award Fee, incentivizing performance while managing costs. 5. The contractor, General Dynamics Government Systems, is a known entity in the defense sector. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code points to a focus on instrument manufacturing.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount was $18,673,296. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for navigation systems is challenging without more specific details on the system's complexity and capabilities. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure allows for flexibility but can sometimes lead to higher overall costs if not managed tightly. Without comparative data on per-unit costs or development expenses for similar systems, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This could be due to the specialized nature of the required navigation system, proprietary technology, or a previous relationship with the contractor. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for price discovery through a bidding process, potentially leading to a higher price than if multiple vendors had competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without competition, the government had less leverage to negotiate the lowest possible price for the navigation systems.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel who will utilize the navigation systems for operational effectiveness. The services delivered include the development, manufacturing, and potentially integration of advanced navigation equipment. The geographic impact is likely global, supporting Department of Defense operations worldwide. Workforce implications include employment at General Dynamics Government Systems and its subcontractors, particularly in engineering and manufacturing roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced innovation.
Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require robust oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and award fees are justified.
The specific capabilities and performance metrics of the navigation system are not detailed, making it hard to assess its true value.

Positive Signals

Award to a known defense contractor like General Dynamics suggests a level of confidence in their capabilities.
The contract duration allowed for a structured development and delivery process.
The definitive contract type implies a clear scope and commitment from both parties.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense electronics and manufacturing sector. The market for navigation systems is highly specialized, often dominated by a few key players with advanced technological capabilities. Spending in this area is driven by the continuous need for precise and reliable navigation for military platforms, including aircraft, ships, and ground vehicles. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific technological sophistication and quantity of units procured.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, the opportunities for small businesses would likely be limited to subcontracting roles, if any. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore minimal unless significant subcontracting opportunities were later identified and awarded.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would have been managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures would be tied to the performance metrics and award fee criteria outlined in the Cost Plus Award Fee contract. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the classified or sensitive aspects often associated with defense technology.

Related Government Programs

Defense Navigation Systems Procurement
Military Electronics Manufacturing
Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
General Dynamics Government Systems Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition.
Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require diligent oversight.
Specific system details and performance metrics are not publicly available.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.7 million to GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORP. 200005!5700!000012!GV59 !ESC/NDK !F1962896C0126 !A!*!P00036 !19991115!20001231!001405844!116187758!001381284!N!04655!GENERAL DYNAMICS GOVERNMENT SY!77 A ST !NEEDHAM HEIGHT !MA!02494!44175!021!25!NEEDHAM HEIGHTS !NORFOLK !MASS !0001!+000000262488!N!N!000000000000!AC65!RDTE/ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION EQ-ENG/MANUF DEV !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !3669!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!D !N!J!1!001!N!1G!Z!N!Z!* !* !N!C!*!B!B!A!A!A!A!* !*!N!A!D!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GTE GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-11-15. End: 2002-01-17.

What specific type of navigation system was procured under this contract, and what were its key performance characteristics?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing' under NAICS code 334511. However, the specific type of navigation system (e.g., GPS-based, inertial, celestial) and its detailed performance characteristics are not discernible from the data. Such information is often classified or considered proprietary for defense contracts. Without these specifics, it's difficult to assess the system's technological advancement or its precise operational role.

How does the $18.7 million award compare to other similar navigation system procurements by the Department of Defense during that period?

Direct comparison of the $18.7 million award to similar procurements is challenging without more granular data on the specific capabilities and quantities involved. The period of performance (1999-2002) saw significant investment in defense technology. However, the sole-source nature of this award limits direct benchmarking against competitively bid programs. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to identify contracts for navigation systems with comparable technical specifications, intended use (e.g., aircraft, naval vessels), and unit costs from the same timeframe.

What were the primary justifications for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' indicating a sole-source award. Common justifications for sole-source procurements in the defense sector include the existence of unique capabilities or proprietary technology held by a single contractor, urgent and compelling needs where competition is not feasible, or when the contract is a follow-on to a previously competed effort where only one source can provide the necessary integration or sustainment. Without further documentation, the specific reason for this sole-source award remains unspecified but likely relates to specialized requirements.

What is the track record of General Dynamics Government Systems in delivering complex navigation systems for the Department of Defense?

General Dynamics Government Systems (and its predecessor entities) has a long-standing and extensive track record of delivering complex systems and technologies to the Department of Defense. They are a major defense contractor involved in various areas, including command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems, as well as ground vehicles and marine systems. While specific details on their navigation system delivery performance under this particular contract are not provided, their general reputation and market position suggest a significant capability in this domain.

What were the key performance metrics or award fee criteria used to evaluate General Dynamics' performance on this contract?

The contract type was 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' (CPAF), which implies that performance was evaluated against specific criteria to determine the amount of award fee earned. However, the exact key performance metrics or award fee criteria are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, for navigation systems, these might include factors such as system accuracy, reliability (mean time between failures), compliance with technical specifications, delivery schedule adherence, and operational effectiveness in various environments. The government would have established these criteria upfront.

How has federal spending on navigation systems manufacturing evolved since this contract was awarded in 1999?

Federal spending on navigation systems manufacturing has likely evolved significantly since 1999, driven by technological advancements (e.g., GPS modernization, integration of multi-constellation receivers, anti-jamming capabilities) and changing military requirements. While this specific contract was for $18.7 million, overall defense spending on C4ISR and related electronics has seen fluctuations but generally remained substantial. Post-9/11 security concerns and ongoing modernization efforts have likely sustained or increased demand for advanced navigation and guidance technologies, potentially shifting spending towards more integrated and networked solutions.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 77 A ST, NEEDHAM HEIGHT, MA, 02494

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline