Marine Corps Systems Command awards $107M contract for advanced amphibious vehicle technology development

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $88,983,260 ($89.0M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Land Systems, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-06-29

End Date: 2009-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,919 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200410!009016!1700!F9999 !MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND !M6785404C0001 !A!N! !N! ! !20040629!20070930!107153702!131266926!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS AMPHIBIOUS SY!991 ANNAPOLIS WAY !WOODBRIDGE !VA!22191!87312!153!51!WOODBRIDGE !PRINCE WILLIAM !VIRGINIA !+000055363241!N!N!000115000000!AC43!RDTE/TANK - AUTOMOTIVE-ADV TECH DEV !A4A!COMBAT VEHICLES !515 !AAAV !336992!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!N!R!1!001!N!1A!A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!Y! ! ! !Y!1727!M48396!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: WOODBRIDGE, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 22191

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $89.0 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC for work described as: 200410!009016!1700!F9999 !MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND !M6785404C0001 !A!N! !N! ! !20040629!20070930!107153702!131266926!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS AMPHIBIOUS SY!991 ANNAPOLIS WAY !WOODBRIDGE !VA!22191!87312!153!51!WOODBRIDGE !PRIN… Key points: 1. Contract focused on research, development, testing, and evaluation of advanced technologies for amphibious vehicles. 2. Sole-source award raises questions about competition and potential for price optimization. 3. Significant duration of the contract (over 5 years) suggests a long-term development effort. 4. Contractor has a substantial track record in defense manufacturing, indicating relevant expertise. 5. Geographic concentration in Virginia may have local economic implications. 6. Award type (Cost Plus Award Fee) allows for contractor incentives but requires robust oversight.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $107 million over approximately five years for advanced technology development appears within a reasonable range for complex defense projects. However, without specific benchmarks for similar R&D efforts in amphibious vehicle technology, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure means the final cost could fluctuate based on performance, necessitating close monitoring to ensure costs remain justified by achieved milestones and technological advancements. Comparing this to other advanced vehicle R&D contracts would provide better context.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor was considered. This approach is typically justified when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or is the only source capable of meeting the requirement. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for price discovery through a bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a competed contract. The justification for this sole-source award needs to be thoroughly documented and reviewed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without multiple offers, the government lacked the leverage to negotiate the lowest possible price for the advanced technology development.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Marine Corps, who will receive advanced capabilities for their amphibious operations. The contract supports the development of next-generation military hardware, enhancing national defense. The geographic impact is concentrated in Woodbridge, Virginia, where the contractor is located, potentially creating or sustaining high-skilled jobs. The workforce implications include employment for engineers, technicians, and support staff involved in research and development.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially impacting cost-effectiveness.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires diligent oversight to prevent cost overruns and ensure performance targets are met.
Lack of publicly available details on specific technological advancements makes independent assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a known entity (General Dynamics) with a history in defense manufacturing, suggesting capability.
Focus on advanced technology development aligns with modernization goals for military equipment.
Contract duration indicates a commitment to achieving significant developmental milestones.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically focusing on the manufacturing and development of military armored vehicles. The market for defense contracting is characterized by significant government investment, long procurement cycles, and specialized technological requirements. General Dynamics is a major player in this industry. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other R&D contracts for advanced ground vehicle systems or naval integration technologies within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless General Dynamics actively pursues small business subcontractors for specific components or services. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the broader impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management structures, likely involving the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure necessitates robust performance monitoring and evaluation to ensure the contractor meets defined objectives and earns award fees appropriately. Transparency is often limited in sole-source defense R&D contracts, but contract modifications, progress reports, and final delivery assessments would be key accountability measures.

Related Government Programs

Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) Program
Ground Vehicle Modernization Programs
Advanced Combat Vehicle Research and Development
Naval Systems Development Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing pressure.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires robust government oversight.
Potential for cost overruns in long-term R&D projects.
Limited public detail on specific technological advancements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $89.0 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND SYSTEMS, INC. 200410!009016!1700!F9999 !MARINE CORPS SYSTEMS COMMAND !M6785404C0001 !A!N! !N! ! !20040629!20070930!107153702!131266926!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS AMPHIBIOUS SY!991 ANNAPOLIS WAY !WOODBRIDGE !VA!22191!87312!153!51!WOODBRIDGE !PRINCE WILLIAM !VIRGINIA !+000055363241!N!N!000115000000!AC43!RDTE/TANK - AUTOMOTIVE-ADV TECH DEV !A4A!COMBAT VEHICLES !515 !AAAV !336992!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS LAND 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 $89.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-06-29. End: 2009-09-30.

What specific technological advancements is this contract intended to achieve for the Marine Corps' amphibious capabilities?

The contract, awarded to General Dynamics Amphibious Systems, focuses on the research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDTE) of advanced technologies for military armored vehicles, specifically within the context of amphibious operations. While the raw data identifies the contract's purpose as 'RDTE/TANK - AUTOMOTIVE-ADV TECH DEV' and links it to 'COMBAT VEHICLES', it does not detail the specific technological breakthroughs sought. These could range from improved propulsion systems, enhanced armor protection, advanced navigation and communication systems, to novel deployment mechanisms for amphibious assaults. The 'AAAV' (Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle) program is a likely related initiative, suggesting the contract aims to mature technologies crucial for future generations of these vehicles, ensuring the Marine Corps maintains a critical capability for projecting power from the sea.

How does the $107 million contract value compare to similar advanced technology development contracts in the defense sector?

Benchmarking the $107 million contract value for advanced technology development is challenging without specific details on the scope and duration of comparable projects. However, R&D contracts for major defense systems, especially those involving complex platforms like armored vehicles, can easily run into hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars over their lifecycle. This $107 million award, spanning approximately five years (from June 2004 to September 2009), suggests a significant but potentially focused effort on specific technological advancements rather than the full-scale development of an entirely new vehicle platform. For context, the overall development cost of programs like the original Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV-7A1) or its successors often far exceeds this figure, indicating that this contract likely represents a component of a larger modernization strategy.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for advanced technology development?

Sole-source awards, like this one to General Dynamics, carry inherent risks. The primary concern is the lack of competition, which can diminish the government's leverage in negotiating favorable pricing, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers. Without multiple bidders, there's less incentive for the contractor to aggressively pursue cost efficiencies. Furthermore, the absence of alternative solutions means the government is reliant on a single provider's capabilities and timelines, increasing program risk if the contractor encounters unforeseen technical challenges or performance issues. Robust oversight and clearly defined performance metrics within the contract are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives adequate value for its investment.

What is General Dynamics' track record with similar defense contracts, and does it indicate a higher likelihood of success or risk?

General Dynamics Land Systems (the apparent contractor, though the data lists 'GENERAL DYNAMICS AMPHIBIOUS SY' initially) has a substantial and long-standing track record in developing and manufacturing military vehicles, including armored personnel carriers, tanks, and amphibious assault vehicles. They were a key player in the development and production of the Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) family and have been involved in subsequent modernization and replacement programs. This extensive experience suggests a high level of technical expertise and program management capability relevant to this contract. While a strong track record can increase confidence in successful execution, it does not eliminate risks. Past performance on complex, long-term R&D projects, especially those involving novel technologies, should still be carefully evaluated for any indicators of potential cost overruns or schedule delays.

How does the 'Cost Plus Award Fee' (CPAF) contract type influence cost control and performance monitoring for this project?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type is designed to incentivize contractor performance while acknowledging the uncertainties inherent in research and development. Under CPAF, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs incurred, plus a base fee (a percentage of estimated costs) and an additional award fee. This award fee is determined by the government based on the contractor's performance against pre-defined criteria and objectives. This structure aims to motivate the contractor to exceed minimum performance standards and achieve specific program goals. However, it places a significant burden on the government to establish clear, measurable performance metrics and to conduct objective, rigorous evaluations to determine the award fee. Without effective oversight and well-defined criteria, there's a risk that award fees could be granted inappropriately, increasing the total cost without commensurate performance gains. Conversely, well-managed CPAF contracts can drive innovation and successful outcomes.

What is the historical spending pattern for advanced technology development in military armored vehicles within the Department of Defense?

Historical spending on advanced technology development for military armored vehicles within the Department of Defense has been substantial and cyclical, often tied to major platform modernization efforts or responses to evolving battlefield threats. Programs like the Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program, and various iterations of amphibious vehicle development (e.g., the Amphibious Combat Vehicle - ACV) represent significant investments, often spanning billions of dollars over many years. These investments typically involve extensive R&D phases, followed by prototyping, testing, and eventual production. Spending fluctuates based on strategic priorities, congressional appropriations, and technological maturity. Contracts like the one awarded in 2004 for $107 million represent a portion of this broader investment landscape, focusing on maturing specific technologies that could feed into larger, future programs.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Transportation Equipment Manufacturing › Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component 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: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 991 ANNAPOLIS WAY, WOODBRIDGE, VA, 22191

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline