Naval Sea Systems Command awards $53.4M contract for engineering and technical services to General Dynamics

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $53,392,257 ($53.4M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-07-28

End Date: 2015-03-26

Contract Duration: 5,354 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200010!1700!003265!BZ005 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002400C5481 !A!*!* !20000728!20050630!003091746!003091746!001381284!N!1BQ03!GENERAL DYNAMICS ADVANCED TECH!I-85 MT HOPE CHURCH RD !MC LEANSVILLE !NC!27301!28000!081!37!GREENSBORO !GUILFORD !N CAROLINA!0001!+000011526001!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !A5 !WEAPONS !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !3812!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !U!V!2!004!B!* !Z!N!Z!* !* !N!C!*!A!A!A!A!A!A!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: MC LEANSVILLE, GUILFORD County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27301

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $53.4 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: 200010!1700!003265!BZ005 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002400C5481 !A!*!* !20000728!20050630!003091746!003091746!001381284!N!1BQ03!GENERAL DYNAMICS ADVANCED TECH!I-85 MT HOPE CHURCH RD !MC LEANSVILLE !NC!27301!28000!081!37!GREENSBORO !GUI… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for critical engineering and technical services supporting naval weapon systems. 2. General Dynamics, a major defense contractor, secured this award. 3. The contract duration spans over 15 years, indicating a long-term need. 4. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 5. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee, which can incentivize cost control. 6. Services are essential for maintaining and advancing naval combat capabilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $53.4 million over its extended period appears reasonable for specialized engineering and technical services in the defense sector. Benchmarking against similar long-term, complex support contracts for naval systems suggests this is within expected ranges. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure allows for potential cost savings if performance targets are met, indicating a mechanism for value for money. However, without detailed breakdowns of labor categories and hours, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of multiple bidders generally fosters price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government. While the exact number of bidders is not specified in the provided data, the 'full and open' designation suggests a robust competitive environment was sought.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at the most favorable prices through a competitive bidding process.

Public Impact

Naval forces benefit from advanced engineering and technical support for weapon systems. The contract ensures the continued development and maintenance of critical defense capabilities. Services likely support naval operations and readiness across various platforms. Workforce implications include employment for engineers, technicians, and support staff within General Dynamics. Geographic impact is centered around the contractor's facilities in North Carolina.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 15 years) could lead to potential cost overruns if not managed effectively.
Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts can sometimes lead to higher costs if incentive targets are not well-defined or achievable.
Reliance on a single large contractor for critical services may reduce future competition.
Scope creep could be a risk given the extended period and technical nature of services.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
CPIF contract structure incentivizes contractor performance and cost control.
General Dynamics is an established defense contractor with a track record in similar services.
Long-term nature of the contract provides stability for critical naval support.
Services directly support national defense and naval readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense Industrial Base sector, specifically focusing on systems integration, engineering, and technical support for naval weapon systems. The market for such specialized services is dominated by large defense contractors capable of handling complex, long-term projects. Spending in this area is driven by the need to maintain technological superiority and operational readiness of naval fleets. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other large-scale engineering support contracts awarded by the Department of Defense to prime contractors.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large prime contract awarded to General Dynamics, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. However, the extent of small business subcontracting is not detailed in this data. The focus on a major defense contractor suggests that the primary awardee is expected to manage the overall effort, potentially limiting direct small business involvement on the prime contract level.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor compliance with contract terms and performance standards. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure implies performance metrics that would be monitored. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting mechanisms, though specific details of performance and costs may be subject to classification or proprietary restrictions. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Weapon Systems Support
Defense Engineering Services
Combat Systems Development
Naval Ship Systems Engineering
Department of Defense IT and Technical Services

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost overruns.
CPIF contract type requires careful monitoring of performance metrics.
Potential for scope creep over the extended contract period.
Reliance on a single large contractor for critical services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $53.4 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. 200010!1700!003265!BZ005 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002400C5481 !A!*!* !20000728!20050630!003091746!003091746!001381284!N!1BQ03!GENERAL DYNAMICS ADVANCED TECH!I-85 MT HOPE CHURCH RD !MC LEANSVILLE !NC!27301!28000!081!37!GREENSBORO !GUILFORD !N CAROLINA!0001!+000011526001!N!N!000000000000!R425!ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES !A5 !WEAPONS !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !3812!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !U!V!

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 $53.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-07-28. End: 2015-03-26.

What is the historical spending trend for similar engineering and technical services contracts awarded by NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar contracts requires access to a broader dataset of NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVSEA) procurements. However, generally, spending on engineering and technical services within the Department of Defense, particularly for major platforms like naval systems, tends to be substantial and relatively stable, driven by modernization programs, sustainment requirements, and research and development initiatives. Fluctuations can occur based on budget cycles, geopolitical events, and specific program needs. For instance, periods of increased naval shipbuilding or upgrades to existing fleets would likely correlate with higher spending on associated engineering and technical support. Without specific historical data for NAVSEA's engineering services, it's difficult to provide precise figures, but the sector is consistently a significant area of federal expenditure.

How does the performance of General Dynamics Advanced Technology compare to other contractors in delivering similar engineering services?

General Dynamics Advanced Technology, as part of the larger General Dynamics Corporation, is a well-established defense contractor with extensive experience in providing engineering and technical services across various military branches. Their track record typically includes successful execution of complex projects, often involving weapon systems, C4ISR, and platform integration. Performance comparisons would ideally involve analyzing past performance reviews, contract award histories, and any documented instances of outstanding or deficient performance on similar contracts. While this specific contract data doesn't provide performance metrics, General Dynamics' consistent presence as a prime contractor suggests a generally positive performance history. However, like any large contractor, specific project outcomes can vary, and a comprehensive assessment would require detailed review of past performance information.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with this Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract?

For a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract like this one, key performance indicators (KPIs) are crucial for determining the incentive portion of the fee. While the specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided summary data, they typically relate to achieving specific technical milestones, adhering to delivery schedules, meeting quality standards, and controlling costs below a target. For example, KPIs might include the successful completion of design reviews by certain dates, the delivery of functional prototypes within a specified timeframe, achieving a certain level of system reliability, or reducing projected costs for specific phases of work. The government and contractor negotiate these KPIs upfront, and the contractor earns a higher fee for exceeding targets and potentially a lower fee, or even no fee, for failing to meet them. Effective monitoring of these KPIs is essential for both parties.

What is the potential impact of this contract on the broader defense industrial base, particularly concerning competition?

This contract, awarded to a major defense contractor like General Dynamics, reinforces the position of large prime contractors within the defense industrial base. While awarded under full and open competition, the substantial value and long duration suggest it contributes to the significant market share held by established players. This can have a dual impact: it provides stability and resources for the prime contractor to invest in technology and workforce, potentially benefiting the overall defense capability. However, it may also present challenges for smaller, emerging companies seeking to enter or expand within this specialized niche, as prime contracts of this magnitude often involve complex requirements and established relationships. The extent to which General Dynamics utilizes small businesses as subcontractors will also influence the broader impact on the small business ecosystem.

Are there any specific technological advancements or innovations expected as a result of this contract?

Given that the contract is for 'ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES' related to 'WEAPONS' for the NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND, it is highly probable that technological advancements and innovations are a core objective. Such contracts typically involve system design, integration, testing, and lifecycle support for complex naval weapon systems. This can include incorporating new sensor technologies, improving targeting algorithms, enhancing platform integration, developing countermeasures, or optimizing system performance through advanced modeling and simulation. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee structure often incentivizes the contractor to propose and implement cost-effective innovative solutions that improve system capabilities or reduce operational costs. While specific innovations are not detailed here, the nature of defense engineering services inherently drives progress in military technology.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 5440 MILLSTREAM RD, MC LEANSVILLE, NC, 27301

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline