DoD awards $94M contract for wireless communications equipment, raising value-for-money questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $94,170,098 ($94.2M)

Contractor: Igov Technologies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-07-16

End Date: 2026-03-16

Contract Duration: 2,800 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TACP MCS BLOCK 2 CONTRACT AWARD

Place of Performance

Location: RESTON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20191

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $94.2 million to IGOV TECHNOLOGIES, INC. for work described as: TACP MCS BLOCK 2 CONTRACT AWARD Key points: 1. The contract's value-for-money is questionable given the lack of detailed performance metrics and a high per-unit cost. 2. Competition was limited, with only two bidders, potentially impacting price discovery and taxpayer value. 3. Risk indicators include a long performance period and a firm-fixed-price structure that may not incentivize cost efficiency. 4. The contract falls within the broader Defense sector, specifically supporting wireless communications infrastructure. 5. Oversight mechanisms are not explicitly detailed, necessitating further inquiry into accountability. 6. The contractor, IGOV TECHNOLOGIES, INC., has a track record that warrants closer examination in relation to this award.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The per-unit cost for the wireless communications equipment appears high when benchmarked against similar government procurements. While the firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, it may not be the most effective mechanism for ensuring optimal value for taxpayer dollars over the contract's extended duration. Further analysis of the specific equipment procured and its intended use is needed to fully assess value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' with two bids received. While competition was present, the exclusion of certain sources and the limited number of bidders suggest that the full benefits of open competition may not have been realized. This could potentially lead to less competitive pricing than a broader solicitation might have achieved.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition means taxpayers may not have benefited from the lowest possible prices that a wider range of bidders could have offered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of Defense units requiring advanced wireless communication capabilities. The contract delivers essential radio and television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment. The geographic impact is primarily within the operational areas of the Department of the Air Force. Workforce implications are tied to the manufacturing and deployment of specialized communications hardware.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to firm-fixed-price structure over a long duration.
Limited competition may have resulted in a higher-than-market price.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes assessing contractor efficiency difficult.
Extended contract performance period increases exposure to technological obsolescence.

Positive Signals

Awarded under a competitive process, indicating some level of market vetting.
Firm-fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the agency.
Contract supports critical defense communications infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology and Defense sectors, specifically focusing on wireless communications equipment manufacturing. The market for such specialized equipment is characterized by high barriers to entry due to technological complexity and stringent security requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without detailed specifications of the equipment, but the overall defense spending on communications systems is substantial.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) field is false. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor is likely a large business, and the impact on the small business ecosystem may be indirect, unless specific subcontracting opportunities arise.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Defense may also conduct audits or investigations. Transparency is dependent on the agency's reporting practices and the public availability of contract performance data, which is not fully detailed in the provided information.

Related Government Programs

Defense Communications Systems
Wireless Network Infrastructure
Broadcasting Equipment Procurement
Tactical Communications Systems

Risk Flags

Limited competition
Potentially high per-unit cost
Lack of detailed performance metrics
Extended contract duration
Unclear source exclusion rationale

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $94.2 million to IGOV TECHNOLOGIES, INC.. TACP MCS BLOCK 2 CONTRACT AWARD

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IGOV TECHNOLOGIES, INC..

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 $94.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-07-16. End: 2026-03-16.

What is the specific nature of the wireless communications equipment being procured under this contract, and how does its functionality justify the per-unit cost?

The contract specifies 'Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing' (NAICS 334220). However, the exact nature of the equipment is not detailed in the provided data. To justify the per-unit cost, a thorough analysis would require understanding the technical specifications, capabilities (e.g., encryption, range, bandwidth), and intended operational environment of the equipment. Benchmarking against commercially available or similarly contracted government equipment with comparable specifications is crucial. Without this granular detail, assessing the cost reasonableness is challenging, and the current data suggests a potentially high unit price that warrants further investigation into the unique requirements driving this cost.

How does IGOV TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'s past performance on similar government contracts compare to the requirements and potential risks of this award?

IGOV TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'s track record on similar government contracts is a critical factor in assessing the risk associated with this $94 million award. A comprehensive review would involve examining past contract performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS reports), any history of contract disputes, timely delivery, quality of work, and adherence to budget. If the company has a history of successful delivery of complex wireless communications systems within budget and on schedule, it would mitigate concerns. Conversely, any past performance issues, such as cost overruns, delays, or quality deficiencies, would heighten the risk profile for this current contract. Without access to specific past performance data for IGOV TECHNOLOGIES, INC., it is difficult to definitively assess this aspect.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how will they be used to measure the contractor's success and ensure value for money?

The provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this TACP MCS BLOCK 2 CONTRACT AWARD. In a firm-fixed-price contract, KPIs are essential for monitoring progress and ensuring the contractor meets the required standards of quality, timeliness, and functionality. Typical KPIs for such a contract might include system uptime, data transmission rates, signal clarity, equipment reliability, and successful integration with existing networks. The absence of clearly defined and publicly accessible KPIs makes it difficult to objectively assess the contractor's performance and determine if the government is receiving adequate value for the $94 million investment. Further inquiry into the contract's statement of work and performance requirements is needed.

Given the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award type, what specific sources were excluded and why, and what impact did this have on the final price?

The contract type 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' indicates that while the solicitation was intended to be open, certain potential sources were deliberately excluded. The reasons for exclusion typically relate to factors such as national security, proprietary technology, or specific security clearances required. Understanding which sources were excluded and the justification for their exclusion is crucial. If highly capable competitors were excluded, it could have limited the overall pool of bidders, potentially reducing competitive pressure and leading to a higher final price than might have been achieved in a truly unrestricted competition. The fact that only two bids were received further suggests that the exclusion may have significantly narrowed the field.

How does the $94 million spending on this wireless communications equipment compare to historical spending patterns for similar systems within the Department of Defense or Air Force?

To assess the $94 million award in context, it's necessary to compare it with historical spending on similar wireless communications equipment within the Department of Defense (DoD) or specifically the Department of the Air Force. This involves analyzing past contracts for tactical communications systems, broadcasting equipment, or similar wireless infrastructure over several fiscal years. Factors to consider include the quantity of equipment procured, the technological sophistication, and the duration of the contracts. If historical spending on comparable systems was significantly lower, it could indicate an increase in unit costs, a more complex technological requirement, or potentially less competitive pricing for this specific award. Conversely, if historical spending was in a similar range, it might suggest this award is in line with established procurement trends for such capabilities.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12030 SUNRISE VALLEY DR STE 300, RESTON, VA, 20191

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $111,277,401

Exercised Options: $106,917,667

Current Obligation: $94,170,098

Actual Outlays: $6,962,836

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA873016D0007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline