DoD awards $59.5M for sensor and weapon systems engineering support to Science Applications International Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $59,479,724 ($59.5M)

Contractor: Science Applications International Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-01-29

End Date: 2016-01-28

Contract Duration: 2,190 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: SENSOR & WEAPON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: RESTON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20190

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $59.5 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION for work described as: SENSOR & WEAPON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract provides critical engineering and technical support for sensor and weapon systems. 2. Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of 6 years indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. The cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing structure allows for flexibility but requires careful oversight. 5. This contract supports the Department of Defense's advanced technology development and sustainment efforts. 6. The value of the contract is significant within the engineering services sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total contract value of $59.5 million over six years averages to approximately $9.9 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale engineering support contracts for defense systems suggests this is within a reasonable range, considering the specialized nature of sensor and weapon systems. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure, while common for complex R&D and engineering, necessitates robust oversight to ensure costs remain controlled and the fixed fee is appropriate for the effort. Without specific cost breakdowns or comparable bids, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the competitive award process provides some assurance.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specialized service. While two bidders is not a high number, it is sufficient to establish a competitive baseline and prevent a sole-source situation. The agency likely evaluated proposals based on a combination of technical merit and price to determine the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for taxpayers compared to sole-source awards. This process ensures that the government receives competitive proposals, driving efficiency.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense agencies requiring advanced engineering and technical support for their sensor and weapon systems. Services delivered include critical analysis, design, development, testing, and sustainment of complex defense technologies. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within defense research and development facilities and operational commands, primarily in Virginia. This contract supports a highly skilled technical workforce specializing in defense engineering and systems integration.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
The limited number of bidders (2) might indicate high barriers to entry or a niche market, potentially reducing competitive pressure.
Long-term contracts can sometimes reduce agility in adapting to rapidly changing technological landscapes.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a fair and transparent procurement process.
The contract duration of six years suggests a stable, long-term requirement and commitment from the DoD.
Science Applications International Corporation is a large, established defense contractor with a proven track record in complex engineering services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a critical component of the broader defense industrial base. The market for defense engineering and technical support is characterized by high barriers to entry due to specialized knowledge, security clearances, and established relationships with government agencies. Spending in this sector is substantial, driven by the continuous need for modernization, sustainment, and development of advanced military technologies. Comparable contracts often involve multi-year durations and values in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, reflecting the complexity and criticality of the services provided.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. As a large prime contract awarded to a major defense contractor, the primary focus is on the prime's capabilities. While large prime contractors often engage small businesses for specialized support, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is not detailed here. Further analysis of subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the small business impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily be managed by the Department of Defense, likely through the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is listed as the Administering Office. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates rigorous financial oversight to monitor expenditures against the estimated cost and ensure the fixed fee is earned appropriately. Transparency is typically maintained through contract reporting mechanisms and performance reviews. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense Engineering Services
Sensor Systems Development
Weapon Systems Integration
Technical Support Services
Department of Defense Procurement

Risk Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type requires diligent oversight to manage potential cost overruns.
Limited number of bidders may indicate a niche market or high barriers to entry.
Long contract duration could pose challenges in adapting to rapidly evolving technologies.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $59.5 million to SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION. SENSOR & WEAPON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $59.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-01-29. End: 2016-01-28.

What is the historical spending trend for sensor and weapon systems engineering support by the Department of Defense over the last five years?

Analyzing historical spending trends for sensor and weapon systems engineering support by the Department of Defense reveals a consistent and significant investment. While specific figures for this exact contract category are not publicly itemized in aggregate, overall DoD spending on Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) and Procurement has remained robust, often exceeding hundreds of billions annually. Engineering and technical support services are a crucial component of these larger budget categories. Factors influencing spending include geopolitical tensions, the pace of technological advancement, and specific platform modernization programs. For instance, investments in areas like artificial intelligence, cyber warfare, and advanced sensor technology have likely driven increased demand for specialized engineering support. The trend generally shows sustained or increasing demand for these services as the DoD seeks to maintain technological superiority.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) compare to other contract types for similar engineering services, and what are its implications for cost control?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is common for research and development, complex engineering, and services where the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset, allowing for flexibility. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This contrasts with Fixed Price contracts, where the price is set regardless of the actual costs, offering greater cost certainty for the buyer but higher risk for the contractor. It also differs from Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), which adjusts the fee based on performance against targets. For CPFF, cost control relies heavily on robust government oversight, detailed cost accounting, and clear definition of allowable costs. While it facilitates innovation and adaptation, it carries a higher risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently, as the contractor has less direct financial incentive to minimize costs compared to fixed-price arrangements.

What is Science Applications International Corporation's (SAIC) track record with similar large-scale defense engineering contracts?

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) has a substantial and well-established track record in providing large-scale engineering and technical support services to the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. They are a major defense contractor frequently awarded complex, high-value contracts across various domains, including command and control, intelligence, logistics, and weapon systems. SAIC has consistently demonstrated capabilities in systems engineering, integration, testing, and lifecycle support for advanced defense platforms. Their history includes numerous contracts similar in scope and value to this $59.5 million award, often involving critical technologies and long-term support requirements. While specific performance metrics for every contract are not always public, SAIC's continued success in winning competitive bids for complex defense programs indicates a generally positive performance history and strong technical expertise recognized by the government.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) typically used to evaluate the success of sensor and weapon systems engineering support contracts?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for sensor and weapon systems engineering support contracts typically focus on technical performance, schedule adherence, cost control, and overall program effectiveness. Technical KPIs might include system reliability, accuracy, range, and integration success rates. For example, meeting specific performance thresholds for sensor detection capabilities or weapon system accuracy would be critical. Schedule KPIs involve meeting key milestones for design reviews, prototype development, testing phases, and delivery. Cost KPIs focus on managing expenditures within the allocated budget, particularly important for CPFF contracts, and demonstrating efficient use of resources. Programmatic KPIs assess the contractor's responsiveness, quality of deliverables, risk management effectiveness, and contribution to the overall mission objectives of the defense program. Regular performance reviews and technical assessments are used to track these KPIs.

How does the geographic location of the administering office (Virginia) potentially influence contract oversight and performance?

The administering office being located in Virginia, specifically the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) office, suggests a proximity to significant Department of Defense activities and personnel, particularly within the large defense industrial base concentrated in the Mid-Atlantic region. This proximity can facilitate more direct and frequent communication between the government contracting officers, contract administrators, and the contractor's personnel. It allows for potentially more hands-on oversight, including site visits, audits, and real-time issue resolution. For a contract involving complex engineering and technical support, having the administering office nearby can streamline the oversight process, improve collaboration, and potentially lead to quicker identification and mitigation of risks or performance issues. However, the effectiveness of oversight ultimately depends on the resources, expertise, and diligence of the DCMA team assigned to the contract, regardless of geographic location.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N0002410R3159

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12010 SUNSET HILLS RD, RESTON, VA, 20190

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $92,455,045

Exercised Options: $92,455,045

Current Obligation: $59,479,724

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017804D4119

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline