DoD awards $35M for BLU-111 bombs, with General Dynamics securing the contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,169,215 ($35.2M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-07-24

End Date: 2021-08-24

Contract Duration: 762 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: BLU-111

Place of Performance

Location: GARLAND, DALLAS County, TEXAS, 75040

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS ORDNANCE AND TACTICAL SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: BLU-111 Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 762 days indicates a medium-term supply requirement. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 4. The product classification (Ammunition, except Small Arms) points to a specific defense need. 5. The awardee, General Dynamics, is a known entity in the defense sector. 6. The contract was awarded in Texas, potentially impacting the local economy.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $35.17 million for BLU-111 ammunition appears reasonable given the nature of defense procurement. Benchmarking against similar ammunition contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control. Without specific per-unit data or comparison to historical pricing for this specific munition, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the overall award seems within expected parameters for this type of defense article.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This designation suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources may have been excluded for specific reasons, possibly related to technical requirements or existing capabilities. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'limited' competition level implies fewer than a fully open process, which could influence price negotiation.

Taxpayer Impact: While the competition was not fully open, the exclusion of sources was likely based on specific government needs. Taxpayers benefit from a structured procurement process that aims for best value, even with some limitations on bidder pool.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense is the primary beneficiary, receiving critical munitions for operational readiness. The contract delivers BLU-111 bombs, essential components for air-to-ground strike capabilities. The contract's performance is linked to Texas (ST: TX), potentially creating or sustaining jobs in that state's defense manufacturing sector. The workforce implications include skilled labor in manufacturing, quality control, and logistics within the defense industry.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited competition to impact final pricing.
Reliance on a single contractor for a specific munition could pose supply chain risks if not managed.
The 'exclusion of sources' needs further clarity to ensure no viable competitors were unfairly barred.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to an established defense contractor like General Dynamics suggests a degree of reliability.
The contract duration allows for planned production and delivery schedules.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on ammunition production. The market for such specialized munitions is typically dominated by a few large defense contractors due to high barriers to entry, including technological expertise, stringent quality control, and government security clearances. Spending in this sub-sector is driven by military readiness requirements and geopolitical factors. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale munition awards.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SS: false, SB: false). General Dynamics is a large prime contractor. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether General Dynamics engages small businesses for components or services, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver within the agreed budget. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Air-to-ground munitions
Defense industrial base
Ammunition manufacturing
General Dynamics contracts
Department of Defense procurement

Risk Flags

Potential supply chain vulnerability
Limited competition implications
Dependence on specific manufacturing capabilities

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS ORDNANCE AND TACTICAL SYSTEMS, INC.. BLU-111

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS ORDNANCE AND TACTICAL SYSTEMS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $35.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-07-24. End: 2021-08-24.

What is the historical spending trend for BLU-111 ammunition by the Department of Defense?

Analyzing historical spending for BLU-111 ammunition requires accessing detailed procurement data over multiple fiscal years. Typically, such data would reveal fluctuations based on operational tempo, inventory needs, and strategic priorities. For instance, periods of heightened conflict or specific modernization programs could correlate with increased procurement. Conversely, budget constraints or shifts in military doctrine might lead to reduced spending. Without access to specific historical contract awards for BLU-111, it's difficult to provide precise figures, but trends often show sustained, albeit variable, investment in critical munitions to maintain readiness and technological superiority.

How does the awarded price per unit compare to market rates or similar contracts for BLU-111 or comparable munitions?

Determining the precise price per unit requires dividing the total contract value ($35,169,215.15) by the number of units procured. However, the number of units is not provided in the data. Even if it were, comparing this to 'market rates' for military munitions is complex, as these are not commercial off-the-shelf items. Prices are heavily influenced by contract type (firm fixed-price here), competition level, specific technical requirements, and volume discounts. Benchmarking would involve comparing this contract's unit price against other DoD contracts for the BLU-111 or functionally similar munitions awarded around the same time, considering variations in quantity and contract terms. Publicly available data often lacks the granularity for direct, definitive comparisons.

What specific factors led to the 'exclusion of sources' in this full and open competition?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' implies that while the solicitation was broadly advertised, certain potential offerors were intentionally excluded. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed in the provided data but typically relate to factors such as: 1) Unique technical capabilities or proprietary technology required for the munition; 2) Past performance issues with certain contractors; 3) National security concerns; or 4) Specific security requirements that only a subset of potential bidders could meet. The contracting agency (Department of Defense) would have documented justification for these exclusions, often related to ensuring the best possible solution for a critical defense requirement.

What is General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems' track record with similar ammunition contracts?

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS) is a significant player in the defense industry, with a well-established track record in manufacturing various munitions, including bombs and artillery shells. They have historically secured numerous contracts with the Department of Defense and allied nations for similar products. Their experience typically encompasses large-scale production, adherence to stringent quality standards, and managing complex supply chains. Reviewing their contract history would likely show numerous awards for ammunition, demonstrating their capability and capacity to fulfill such requirements, though specific performance details on past contracts would require deeper investigation.

Are there any significant risks associated with the supply chain or performance for this BLU-111 contract?

Risks associated with this contract could include potential supply chain disruptions for raw materials or components, especially given the specialized nature of munitions manufacturing. Dependence on a limited number of suppliers for critical parts can exacerbate this risk. Performance risks might involve meeting production schedules, maintaining stringent quality control, and ensuring the munitions meet all technical specifications. The firm fixed-price nature places the cost risk primarily on the contractor, incentivizing them to manage performance effectively. However, unforeseen technical challenges or production issues could still impact delivery timelines or require contract modifications.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing › Ammunition (except Small Arms) Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 1200 N GLENBROOK DR, GARLAND, TX, 75040

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $35,169,215

Exercised Options: $35,169,215

Current Obligation: $35,169,215

Actual Outlays: $1,259,028

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 66

Total Subaward Amount: $28,347,373

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline