DoD's $15.9M GD Sustainment Contract Awarded Sole-Source in 2006 for Wireless Equipment

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,891,420 ($15.9M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-10-01

End Date: 2008-11-30

Contract Duration: 791 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: GD SUSTAINMENT

Place of Performance

Location: SAN JOSE, SANTA CLARA County, CALIFORNIA, 95134

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.9 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: GD SUSTAINMENT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about price discovery and potential for overpayment. 2. Fixed Price Award Fee contract type suggests incentives for performance, but details of award fee structure are not provided. 3. Long duration of 791 days for a contract awarded in 2006 indicates a potentially extended need for sustainment services. 4. The contract falls under 'Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing,' a niche sector. 5. No small business set-aside was applied, suggesting the prime contractor is a large entity. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of Defense, a major federal spender.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money on this $15.9 million contract. The sole-source award raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price. The Fixed Price Award Fee structure implies performance incentives, but the lack of transparency on the award fee criteria makes it hard to assess if the contractor was appropriately incentivized for exceptional value. Further analysis would require comparing the awarded price to similar sustainment contracts for wireless communications equipment, which are not readily available in the provided data.

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. This typically occurs when only one vendor can provide the required goods or services, or in cases of urgent need. The lack of competition means there were no other bidders to compare against, limiting the government's ability to negotiate the best possible price and terms. This approach can sometimes lead to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not have received the benefit of competitive pricing, potentially leading to a higher overall cost for this sustainment effort.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from the sustainment of critical wireless communications equipment, ensuring operational readiness. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, and potentially upgrades for existing wireless communication systems. The geographic impact is likely focused on military installations where this equipment is deployed, primarily within California as indicated by the 'SN' field. Workforce implications could involve specialized technicians and engineers required for the maintenance and support of advanced wireless equipment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in award fee structure makes it difficult to assess performance-based value.
Contract duration and award date suggest potential for outdated technology or services if not managed proactively.
No small business participation indicated, potentially missing opportunities to leverage specialized small business capabilities.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to General Dynamics, a known defense contractor with established capabilities.
Fixed Price Award Fee structure aims to incentivize contractor performance.
Sustainment contracts are crucial for maintaining the operational effectiveness of critical defense systems.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing' sector, a specialized area within the broader manufacturing industry. The market for defense-related wireless communications equipment is characterized by high technological sophistication and stringent security requirements. Spending in this sector is often driven by defense modernization efforts and the need for secure, reliable communication systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other sustainment contracts for similar complex electronic and communication systems within the defense industrial base.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SS=false, SB=false). This suggests that the prime contractor, General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., is a large business. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or actual subcontracting to small businesses. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific contract appears minimal, and opportunities for small business participation were likely not prioritized or pursued through set-asides.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and procurement regulations, managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Specific oversight mechanisms would include contract surveillance, performance monitoring, and financial audits to ensure compliance with the contract terms. Accountability measures are tied to the Fixed Price Award Fee structure, where contractor performance directly influences payment. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the proprietary details of the award fee criteria, but contract awards are generally reported in federal databases.

Related Government Programs

Defense Communications Systems
Wireless Equipment Procurement
Federal IT and Communications
DoD Sustainment Contracts
General Dynamics Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about price competition.
Lack of transparency in award fee criteria hinders performance assessment.
Contract awarded over 15 years ago, current relevance and value are questionable without follow-on data.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to specialized nature of equipment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.9 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. GD SUSTAINMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION 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 $15.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-10-01. End: 2008-11-30.

What is the track record of General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. with similar sole-source sustainment contracts for wireless equipment within the Department of Defense?

General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. (GDMS) has a significant history of contracting with the Department of Defense (DoD) across various platforms and services, including communications systems. While this specific $15.9 million contract was sole-source, GDMS frequently engages in competitive bidding for larger programs. Their track record often involves complex system integration, sustainment, and modernization efforts. For sole-source awards, the justification typically centers on unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or essential sustainment of existing systems where competition is not feasible. Analyzing GDMS's broader performance on similar sustainment contracts, particularly those involving wireless communications equipment, would require examining contract performance reports (CPARS), past performance questionnaires, and potentially other contract vehicles to assess their reliability, cost-effectiveness, and adherence to delivery schedules.

How does the $15.9 million value of this contract compare to other DoD sustainment contracts for wireless communications equipment awarded around the same period (2006-2008)?

Comparing the $15.9 million value requires context regarding the specific type and scope of wireless communications equipment being sustained. Contracts in this domain can vary widely based on the complexity, age, and criticality of the systems. For instance, sustainment for tactical battlefield radios might differ significantly in cost from that of strategic network infrastructure. Awards made around 2006-2008 for similar sustainment efforts could range from a few million dollars for component-level repairs to tens or even hundreds of millions for comprehensive system lifecycle support. Without more granular data on the specific equipment and services covered by this GDMS contract, a precise benchmark is challenging. However, $15.9 million for a two-year sustainment effort (based on the duration) for specialized wireless equipment is within a plausible range for a sole-source award, though the lack of competition prevents definitive value assessment.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award for sustainment of critical wireless communications equipment?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award for sustainment of critical wireless communications equipment include: 1. **Higher Costs:** Without competition, the government may pay a premium, as the contractor faces less pressure to offer the lowest possible price. 2. **Reduced Innovation:** The lack of competitive pressure can disincentivize the contractor from proactively seeking innovative or more cost-effective sustainment solutions. 3. **Vendor Lock-in:** The government may become dependent on a single vendor, making it difficult and costly to switch providers in the future, especially if the vendor possesses unique knowledge or intellectual property related to the equipment. 4. **Potential for Complacency:** The contractor might become complacent regarding service quality or responsiveness, knowing that the government has limited alternatives. 5. **Limited Transparency:** Sole-source justifications and pricing details are often less transparent, making it harder for oversight bodies and the public to scrutinize the value received.

How effective is the Fixed Price Award Fee (FPAF) contract type in ensuring performance for sustainment services like this?

The Fixed Price Award Fee (FPAF) contract type aims to balance cost control with performance incentives. In theory, it provides a baseline price for the services (fixed price component) while offering additional 'award fees' based on the contractor meeting or exceeding specific performance objectives. For sustainment services, these objectives could include response times, equipment uptime, quality of repairs, and adherence to maintenance schedules. The effectiveness hinges critically on how well the award fee criteria are defined, measured, and evaluated. If the criteria are objective, measurable, and directly tied to mission-critical outcomes, FPAF can be effective in motivating contractors to perform well. However, if the criteria are vague, subjective, or poorly managed, the award fees may not genuinely reflect superior performance, potentially becoming an entitlement or a source of disputes, thus diminishing its effectiveness.

What does the contract's end date of November 30, 2008, imply about the current status of this sustainment requirement?

The contract's end date of November 30, 2008, indicates that this specific contract is long expired. Awarded on October 1, 2006, with a duration of 791 days (approximately 2 years and 2 months), it covered a defined period of sustainment for the specified wireless communications equipment. This implies that the sustainment need, if it still exists, has either been fulfilled by subsequent contracts, transitioned to a different support mechanism, or potentially the equipment itself has been retired or replaced. It is highly unlikely that this particular contract is still active. Any ongoing sustainment requirements for this equipment would necessitate new contract actions, likely competed or justified under current procurement regulations.

Given the contract's classification under 'Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing,' what are the typical market dynamics for such specialized defense equ

The market dynamics for specialized defense wireless communications equipment sustainment are typically characterized by high barriers to entry due to technological complexity, security requirements, and long product lifecycles. The original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or their authorized agents, like General Dynamics in this case, often dominate the sustainment market, especially for proprietary systems. This can lead to limited competition, as seen in the sole-source award. The defense sector often requires long-term supportability, driving demand for sustainment services that can span decades. Pricing is influenced by factors such as the availability of spare parts, the need for specialized technical expertise, obsolescence management, and the government's own readiness requirements. The market is also subject to evolving threats and technological advancements, necessitating continuous updates and adaptation of sustainment strategies.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 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: FIXED PRICE AWARD FEE (M)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 2688 ORCHARD PKWY, SAN JOSE, CA, 95134

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,286,001

Exercised Options: $18,286,001

Current Obligation: $15,891,420

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline