BIG Safari Contract Awarded to Sierra Nevada Company, LLC for $25M, Spanning 888 Days

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,003,674 ($25.0M)

Contractor: Sierra Nevada Company, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-09-24

End Date: 2021-02-28

Contract Duration: 888 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: BIG SAFARI

Place of Performance

Location: ENGLEWOOD, DENVER County, COLORADO, 80112

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.0 million to SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC for work described as: BIG SAFARI Key points: 1. Value for money is difficult to assess due to the lack of competition and limited public data. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a sole-source award, potentially limiting price discovery and increasing costs. 3. Risk indicators include the sole-source nature of the award and the absence of a competitive benchmark. 4. Performance context is provided by the contract duration and delivery order type. 5. Sector positioning is within 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services', a broad category. 6. The contract's total value is substantial, requiring careful scrutiny of its necessity and effectiveness.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $25 million contract is challenging without comparable sole-source awards or detailed performance metrics. The 'COST NO FEE' (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) contract type, while common, can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. Without a competitive process, it's difficult to ascertain if the pricing reflects fair market value or if taxpayers received the best possible deal. Further analysis of the specific services rendered and their necessity would be required for a more definitive value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities or when urgency dictates a rapid award. The lack of competition means that Sierra Nevada Company, LLC was the only entity considered, and there was no opportunity for other companies to bid on the work. This can limit price negotiation and potentially lead to higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not benefit from the cost savings typically achieved through competitive bidding. The government may have paid a premium for these services due to the absence of market pressure.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Air Force, receiving specialized technical services. The contract supports advanced technological capabilities, likely within intelligence, surveillance, or reconnaissance. Geographic impact is not specified but likely concentrated where the Air Force operates or requires these services. Workforce implications may involve highly skilled technical personnel employed by Sierra Nevada Company, LLC.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer funds.
The 'COST NO FEE' contract type requires robust oversight to prevent cost escalation.
Limited public information makes it difficult to independently verify the necessity and effectiveness of the services.
The broad nature of the NAICS code 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' obscures the specific nature of the work performed.

Positive Signals

The contract is awarded to a known entity, Sierra Nevada Company, LLC, suggesting a degree of established capability.
The duration of the contract (888 days) indicates a sustained need for the services provided.
The award was made by the Department of the Air Force, a major defense agency with established procurement processes.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the broad 'Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' sector, which is a significant area of federal spending. Within this sector, specialized technical services for defense applications are crucial for maintaining technological superiority. Comparable spending in this area can vary widely depending on the specific technology and agency. However, contracts of this magnitude, even when sole-source, are common for highly specialized defense needs where few companies possess the required expertise.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. Given the sole-source nature and the likely specialized technical requirements, it is improbable that small businesses were primary recipients or subcontractors unless they were part of a larger team. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess any indirect impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract terms, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source award and the nature of defense-related services. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Systems
Aerospace and Defense Technology Services
Advanced Technical Support Services
Department of Defense Research and Development

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of public performance data
Broad NAICS code obscuring specific services

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.0 million to SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC. BIG SAFARI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SIERRA NEVADA COMPANY, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-09-24. End: 2021-02-28.

What specific technical services were provided under the BIG SAFARI contract?

The specific technical services provided under the BIG SAFARI contract are not detailed in the provided data. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code '541990' covers 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,' which is a very broad category. Given the awarding agency (Department of the Air Force) and the contractor (Sierra Nevada Company, LLC), it is highly probable that these services relate to advanced aerospace, defense, intelligence, or specialized technology development, integration, or support. Without access to the contract's statement of work or performance reports, the precise nature of the services remains undisclosed to the public.

How does the $25 million contract value compare to similar sole-source awards for technical services within the Department of Defense?

Comparing the $25 million value of this sole-source contract to similar awards is challenging without more specific details on the services rendered. However, within the Department of Defense, sole-source contracts in the tens of millions of dollars for specialized technical services are not uncommon, particularly for areas like advanced electronics, aerospace systems, or intelligence support where a limited number of contractors possess the requisite expertise and security clearances. The 'COST NO FEE' (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) structure suggests that the government is covering the costs of performance plus a negotiated fixed fee for the contractor's effort. The true value comparison would depend on the criticality of the service, the uniqueness of the contractor's capability, and the absence of viable alternatives.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude include potential overpricing due to the lack of competitive pressure, reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or optimize costs, and a lack of transparency in the procurement process. Taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible value for their money. Additionally, there's a risk that the government becomes overly reliant on a single contractor, potentially hindering future competition or flexibility. Robust oversight, clear performance metrics, and thorough justification for the sole-source award are critical to mitigating these risks.

What is the historical spending pattern for Sierra Nevada Company, LLC with the Department of the Air Force?

Historical spending data for Sierra Nevada Company, LLC with the Department of the Air Force would require access to a comprehensive federal procurement database. However, Sierra Nevada Company, LLC (now part of Textron) is a well-established defense contractor known for its work in areas such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, electronic warfare, and aviation. It is highly probable that they have received numerous contracts, including sole-source awards, from the Air Force and other defense agencies over the years, reflecting their specialized capabilities. Analyzing past awards could reveal patterns in contract types, service areas, and average award values, providing context for the BIG SAFARI contract.

How does the contract duration of 888 days (approximately 2.4 years) influence the assessment of its effectiveness?

A contract duration of 888 days suggests a sustained requirement for the services provided by Sierra Nevada Company, LLC. This extended period implies that the services are not short-term or ad-hoc but rather integral to ongoing operations or development efforts within the Department of the Air Force. For assessment of effectiveness, this duration allows for the evaluation of performance over a significant period, moving beyond initial setup or short-term deliverables. It implies a level of trust and established working relationship between the contractor and the agency. However, it also means that any inefficiencies or misalignments in the contract's objectives or execution would have a prolonged impact, making continuous monitoring and performance evaluation crucial throughout its lifespan.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Sierra Nevada Corporation

Address: 444 SALOMON CIR, SPARKS, NV, 89434

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,017,351

Exercised Options: $25,017,351

Current Obligation: $25,003,674

Actual Outlays: $1,420,881

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 19

Total Subaward Amount: $16,014,347

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA862016G3013

IDV Type: BOA

Timeline