DoD Awards $835M for Lockheed Martin Engineering Services, Raising Oversight Concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,979,925 ($33.0M)

Contractor: Lockheed Martin Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-10-01

End Date: 2004-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,187 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200211!001530!1700!AC521 !NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001900C0235 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20000927!20010330!019710586!019710586!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION !9500 GODWIN DR !MANASSAS !VA!20110!48952!683!51!MANASSAS !MANASSAS (CITY) !VIRGINIA !+000000300000!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541330!E! !3!A!S!C! ! !99990909!B! ! !N!Z!D!U!J!1!001!N!1A!Z!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!A!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: MANASSAS, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 20110

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $33.0 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION for work described as: 200211!001530!1700!AC521 !NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001900C0235 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20000927!20010330!019710586!019710586!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION !9500 GODWIN DR !MANASSAS !VA!20110!48952!683!51!MANASSAS !MANAS… Key points: 1. Significant contract value ($835M) awarded to a major defense contractor. 2. Lack of competition raises questions about price discovery and potential overspending. 3. Engineering services are critical but require robust oversight to ensure value. 4. Contract awarded to Lockheed Martin, a dominant player in the aerospace and defense sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $835,041,691 for engineering services appears high given the limited competition. Benchmarking against similar contracts for specialized engineering support is difficult without more detailed service descriptions, but the lack of competitive bidding suggests potential for inflated pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under a limited competition, specifically 'NOT COMPETED'. This significantly restricts price discovery and may lead to higher costs for taxpayers compared to a full and open competition. The justification for limiting competition is not provided.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition for an $835M contract likely results in a higher cost to taxpayers than if multiple bids were solicited and evaluated.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for essential engineering services due to limited competition. The Department of Defense relies on contractors like Lockheed Martin for critical defense capabilities. Lack of transparency in the procurement process can erode public trust. Potential for cost overruns if not closely monitored.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition for a large contract
Potential for inflated pricing
Lack of detailed justification for sole-source award
Significant taxpayer investment without clear competitive advantage

Positive Signals

Award to a reputable contractor with extensive experience
Contract supports critical defense engineering functions
Fixed-price contract may offer some cost control

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the defense industry. Spending in this area is substantial, and competitive bidding is crucial to ensure cost-effectiveness and innovation. Benchmarks for similar large-scale engineering support contracts are often proprietary but typically emphasize technical expertise and project management.

Small Business Impact

This contract was awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation, a large prime contractor. There is no indication that small businesses were involved as subcontractors or partners in this specific award, which is common for large, complex defense contracts of this nature.

Oversight & Accountability

The limited competition for this substantial contract warrants close oversight. The Department of Defense should ensure robust performance monitoring and cost controls are in place to mitigate risks associated with non-competitive awards. Transparency regarding the justification for limited competition is essential for accountability.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Potential for cost overruns
Limited transparency in procurement
High contract value
Insufficient justification for limited competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $33.0 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION. 200211!001530!1700!AC521 !NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001900C0235 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20000927!20010330!019710586!019710586!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION !9500 GODWIN DR !MANASSAS !VA!20110!48952!683!51!MANASSAS !MANASSAS (CITY) !VIRGINIA !+000000300000!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541330!E! !3!A!S!C! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LOCKHEED MARTIN 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 $33.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-10-01. End: 2004-12-31.

What specific engineering services were provided under this contract, and how do they align with the stated need?

The contract specifies 'ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES' under NAICS code 541330. While the exact nature of these services is not detailed in the provided data, they likely encompass design, development, testing, and integration of complex systems for the Naval Air Systems Command. The alignment with stated needs would require access to the contract's statement of work and performance reports.

What was the justification for limiting competition, and were alternative approaches considered?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A formal justification, such as a sole-source justification or a limited competition rationale, would typically be required by federal acquisition regulations. Without this documentation, it's impossible to assess if alternative, more competitive approaches were considered or if there were valid reasons for limiting the field of bidders.

How does the per-unit cost or overall value compare to similar engineering services contracts awarded competitively?

Direct comparison is challenging without detailed service breakdowns and access to competitively bid contracts for similar scope and complexity. However, the absence of competition for an $835M award inherently raises a red flag regarding potential overpricing. A thorough review by an independent cost analyst would be needed to establish a reliable benchmark.

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: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Lockheed Martin Corp (UEI: 834951691)

Address: 9500 GODWIN DR, MANASSAS, VA, 20110

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline