DoD's $6.8M contract for navigation systems awarded to Rockwell Collins raises questions on competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,793,253 ($6.8M)

Contractor: Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-09-26

End Date: 2027-03-25

Contract Duration: 545 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: AMS V4F1

Place of Performance

Location: CEDAR RAPIDS, LINN County, IOWA, 52498

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $6.8 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. for work described as: AMS V4F1 Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. The contract duration of 545 days suggests a need for ongoing support or development. 3. The 'IA' (Intelligence/Allied) status might indicate specific security or operational requirements. 4. The absence of small business involvement raises concerns about broader economic impact. 5. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize cost overruns. 6. Benchmarking against similar navigation system contracts is crucial for assessing value.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $6.8 million for navigation systems requires careful benchmarking against similar procurements. Given the sole-source award, it's difficult to assess if this price reflects competitive market rates. The CPFF contract type also introduces risk, as it may not provide the same cost control as fixed-price contracts. Further analysis of the specific system's capabilities and the contractor's historical performance on similar contracts is needed to definitively determine value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one bidder, Rockwell Collins, Inc., was considered. This approach bypasses the competitive bidding process, which typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. Without competition, it is challenging to ascertain if the government received the best possible pricing and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not benefit from the cost savings typically achieved through competitive bidding, potentially leading to higher overall expenditure for this procurement.

Public Impact

This contract directly benefits the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) by providing essential navigation systems. The services delivered are critical for the operational effectiveness of special operations forces. The geographic impact is primarily within the operational theaters of U.S. Special Operations Command. The contract supports specialized technical roles within Rockwell Collins, Inc., and potentially its supply chain.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competition and price discovery.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can lead to cost overruns.
Lack of small business set-aside or subcontracting plans limits economic opportunity.
Specific 'IA' (Intelligence/Allied) designation may indicate unique, non-standard requirements that limit competition.
Limited public information on the specific system and its necessity hinders independent value assessment.

Positive Signals

Award to an established contractor (Rockwell Collins) suggests potential for reliable delivery.
The contract is for a specific duration, providing clear timelines for delivery and support.
The contract specifies a fixed fee component, which, if managed well, can provide some cost certainty.
The system is likely critical for U.S. Special Operations Command, indicating a high priority need.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on the manufacturing and integration of navigation systems. The market for such specialized equipment is often dominated by a few key players due to high barriers to entry, including technological expertise, security clearances, and established relationships with defense agencies. Spending in this sub-sector is driven by the need for advanced situational awareness and precision guidance for military operations.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to include a small business set-aside, nor is there an indication of subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee, Rockwell Collins, Inc., will be performing the majority of the work. Consequently, the contract may not significantly contribute to the small business ecosystem or provide opportunities for small businesses to participate in defense contracting for this specific requirement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) contracting and program management offices. As a sole-source award, scrutiny may be higher to ensure fair and reasonable pricing. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature. The Department of Defense's Inspector General could investigate if specific concerns regarding fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

DoD Navigation Systems Procurement
Special Operations Command Equipment Acquisition
Aerospace and Defense Manufacturing Contracts
Sole-Source Defense Contracts
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus contract type
Lack of competition
Potential for cost overruns
Limited small business participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $6.8 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.. AMS V4F1

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (U.S. Special Operations Command).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-26. End: 2027-03-25.

What is Rockwell Collins, Inc.'s track record with the U.S. Special Operations Command and similar navigation system contracts?

Rockwell Collins, Inc. (now part of Collins Aerospace) has a long history of providing avionics, communication, and navigation systems to the U.S. military, including SOCOM. Their track record typically involves complex, high-reliability systems for demanding operational environments. Analyzing past performance on similar sole-source or competitively awarded contracts for SOCOM would reveal their historical pricing, delivery performance, and any past issues. Without specific contract data, it's assumed they are a capable provider, but the lack of competition here prevents a direct comparison of their current pricing against potential alternatives.

How does the $6.8 million value compare to similar navigation system contracts awarded by the DoD or other agencies?

Benchmarking this $6.8 million contract is challenging without knowing the specific system, its capabilities, and the contract duration (545 days). However, navigation systems can range widely in cost. Basic GPS receivers might cost thousands, while advanced integrated inertial navigation systems with specialized software for military applications can cost hundreds of thousands or even millions per unit. Given the sole-source nature and CPFF structure, a direct comparison to competitively bid contracts for similar functionalities is essential to determine if this represents fair market value. The absence of this comparative data makes the value assessment 'questionable'.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source, Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for navigation systems?

The primary risks of a sole-source CPFF contract are twofold. Sole-sourcing eliminates competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher prices than might be achieved through bidding. The CPFF structure, while providing flexibility, shifts much of the cost risk to the government. The contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. This can incentivize the contractor to incur higher costs, as their profit margin (the fixed fee) remains constant regardless of the total project cost, potentially leading to cost overruns and reduced value for taxpayers. Robust oversight is critical to mitigate these risks.

What is the expected effectiveness or program outcome of these navigation systems for SOCOM?

The effectiveness and program outcome are expected to be the provision of reliable, accurate, and potentially specialized navigation capabilities crucial for U.S. Special Operations Command's missions. These systems likely enhance situational awareness, enable precise maneuvering in complex environments (e.g., GPS-denied areas), and support mission success for special operations forces. The 'IA' designation might imply integration with intelligence systems or support for allied operations, further underscoring the critical nature of these systems. The contract's duration suggests ongoing operational needs or development/integration phases.

What are the historical spending patterns for navigation systems by SOCOM or the DoD?

Historical spending patterns for navigation systems by SOCOM and the broader DoD are substantial, reflecting the critical role these technologies play in modern warfare. This spending encompasses a wide range of systems, from basic GPS receivers to highly sophisticated integrated navigation suites. Contracts can vary significantly in value, from small purchases of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment to multi-million dollar sole-source awards for specialized military-grade systems. Analyzing past SOCOM spending on similar sole-source awards versus competitive procurements can provide context for the current $6.8 million contract, highlighting trends in pricing, technology adoption, and contractor reliance.

Are there any specific performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) defined for this contract?

The provided data does not specify the performance metrics or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for navigation systems, KPIs would relate to accuracy (e.g., CEP - Circular Error Probable), reliability (Mean Time Between Failures - MTBF), operational availability, environmental resistance (temperature, shock, vibration), and potentially integration capabilities with other platforms or systems. The absence of this information in the summary data makes it difficult to assess how performance will be measured and assured throughout the contract period, which is a key aspect of oversight.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp

Address: 400 COLLINS RD NE, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA, 52498

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: $6,793,253

Exercised Options: $6,793,253

Current Obligation: $6,793,253

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: H9224120D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline