General Dynamics received $35.16M for R&D on electronics and communication equipment, awarded non-competitively

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,163,432 ($35.2M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-11-25

End Date: 2012-06-30

Contract Duration: 3,505 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200304!030429!1700!BZ005 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002403C5438 !A!N! !N! !20021125!20041015!003091746!003091746!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ADVANCED TECH!5440 MILLSTREAM ROAD !MCLEANSVILLE !NC!27301!28000!081!37!GREENSBORO !GUILFORD !N CAROLINA!+000010782212!N!N!000045069185!AC61!RDTE/ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION EQ-BASIC RESEARCH!A5 !WEAPONS !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !334511!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!U!R!1!001!N!1B!A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!Y! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22033

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: 200304!030429!1700!BZ005 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002403C5438 !A!N! !N! !20021125!20041015!003091746!003091746!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ADVANCED TECH!5440 MILLSTREAM ROAD !MCLEANSVILLE !NC!27301!28000!081!37!GREENSBORO !GUILF… Key points: 1. Contract awarded non-competitively, raising questions about potential cost savings through broader bidding. 2. Research and Development focus on advanced electronics and communication equipment suggests innovation in defense capabilities. 3. The contract duration of over 10 years indicates a long-term need for the developed technologies. 4. Awarded to a single, established contractor, potentially limiting opportunities for emerging technology providers. 5. The 'Cost Plus Award Fee' structure incentivizes performance but requires careful oversight to manage costs. 6. The specific product service code (PSC) points to a niche area within defense electronics manufacturing.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $35.16 million over its extended period appears moderate for R&D in advanced electronics. However, without a competitive bidding process, it's difficult to benchmark the pricing against market alternatives or assess if it represents the best value for money. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, while common for R&D, can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently. Further analysis would be needed to compare the per-unit cost of development or specific deliverables against similar R&D efforts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This typically occurs when only one responsible source is available or when there's a compelling justification for not seeking competition, such as unique capabilities or urgent needs. The lack of competition means that taxpayers did not benefit from the price discovery that a competitive bidding process would provide, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple vendors had vied for the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to secure the lowest possible price through competition. This means taxpayers may be paying a premium for the goods or services received, as the contractor faces less pressure to offer competitive pricing.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense, specifically naval systems, which will receive advanced electronics and communication equipment. The contract supports research and development, aiming to enhance capabilities in areas such as search, detection, navigation, and guidance systems. The geographic impact is centered around the contractor's location in North Carolina, with potential ripple effects in the local economy through employment and supply chains. Workforce implications include specialized R&D roles for engineers and scientists at General Dynamics, contributing to high-skill job creation in the technology sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Cost Plus Award Fee contracts require robust oversight to prevent cost escalation.
Long contract duration could mask inefficiencies if performance is not continuously monitored.
Sole-source awards limit opportunities for small businesses and innovative new entrants.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a known entity (General Dynamics) with a track record in defense contracting.
Focus on R&D in critical electronics and communication systems supports technological advancement.
The contract duration suggests a sustained commitment to developing and integrating advanced capabilities.
The specific product service code (334511) indicates a focus on specialized, high-value defense technology.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense electronics and communication equipment manufacturing sector. This sector is characterized by high R&D investment, long product development cycles, and significant government procurement. The market size is substantial, driven by national security needs and technological advancements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other R&D contracts for similar electronic systems within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies, though specific figures are often classified or difficult to compare due to unique technical requirements.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside. Given its sole-source nature and focus on advanced R&D, it is unlikely that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would be mandated or significant, unless General Dynamics voluntarily incorporates them into their supply chain. This could limit the direct impact on the small business defense technology ecosystem for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, rigorous financial and performance oversight is crucial to ensure that costs are reasonable and that award fees are earned based on objective performance metrics. Transparency may be limited due to the classified or sensitive nature of R&D, but contract modifications, progress reports, and financial audits are standard oversight mechanisms.

Related Government Programs

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Contracts
Department of Defense Research and Development
Electronics and Communication Equipment Manufacturing
General Dynamics Contracts
Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competition.
Cost Plus Award Fee requires diligent oversight.
Long contract duration (over 10 years) increases risk of cost escalation or obsolescence.
Basic research focus can have uncertain outcomes and timelines.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. 200304!030429!1700!BZ005 !NAVAL SEA SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0002403C5438 !A!N! !N! !20021125!20041015!003091746!003091746!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ADVANCED TECH!5440 MILLSTREAM ROAD !MCLEANSVILLE !NC!27301!28000!081!37!GREENSBORO !GUILFORD !N CAROLINA!+000010782212!N!N!000045069185!AC61!RDTE/ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION EQ-BASIC RESEARCH!A5 !WEAPONS !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !334511!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B

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 $35.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-11-25. End: 2012-06-30.

What is the specific nature of the 'electronics & communication eq-basic research' being conducted under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract's purpose is 'RDTE/ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION EQ-BASIC RESEARCH' with a Product Service Code (PSC) of 334511, which corresponds to 'Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing'. While the data doesn't detail the specific research, it implies foundational work in developing new technologies or improving existing ones for naval systems related to sensing, communication, and operational guidance. This could encompass areas like advanced radar, sonar, electronic warfare systems, secure communication protocols, or integrated navigation systems, all crucial for naval operations.

How does the $35.16 million contract value compare to similar R&D efforts in naval electronics?

Comparing the $35.16 million contract value to similar R&D efforts in naval electronics is challenging without access to more specific contract details and broader market data. However, for a decade-long basic research and development effort in a specialized field like naval electronics, this figure appears to be within a plausible range, though potentially on the lower end for extensive, multi-faceted R&D programs. Many advanced R&D contracts, especially those involving cutting-edge technology or system integration, can reach significantly higher values. The sole-source nature of this award also complicates direct value comparisons, as competitive bids often drive down costs.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source, Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract for R&D?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source, CPAF contract for R&D are twofold. Firstly, the sole-source nature eliminates competitive pressure, potentially leading to inflated costs and reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate efficiently, as there's no alternative provider to compare against. Secondly, CPAF contracts, while designed to incentivize performance, carry inherent risks of cost overruns. The government must establish clear, measurable performance metrics and diligently monitor progress to ensure award fees are justified. Without strong oversight, the contractor might focus on achieving easily attainable metrics rather than pushing the boundaries of innovation, or costs could escalate beyond initial projections.

What is General Dynamics' track record with similar R&D contracts for the Navy?

General Dynamics has a substantial and long-standing track record of contracting with the U.S. Navy and the Department of Defense across various sectors, including shipbuilding, C4ISR (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance), and IT services. While specific R&D contract details are often proprietary, the company's consistent awards suggest a demonstrated capability in delivering complex technological solutions. Their involvement in advanced electronics and communication systems is well-documented through various programs. However, a deeper dive into past performance reviews, past performance information (PPI) databases, and specific project outcomes would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of their R&D track record for the Navy.

How has spending on 'Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing' (PSC 334511) evolved over time for the Navy?

Analyzing the historical spending trends for PSC 334511 specifically for the Navy requires access to comprehensive federal procurement databases. Generally, spending in this category tends to fluctuate based on strategic priorities, technological advancements, and specific platform modernization or development needs. Periods of heightened geopolitical tension or significant technological shifts often see increased investment. The Navy's continuous need for advanced situational awareness, navigation, and targeting systems suggests a sustained, albeit potentially variable, level of expenditure in this area. Examining aggregated data over several fiscal years would reveal patterns of investment and identify any significant increases or decreases.

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: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 12450 FAIR LAKES CIR STE 800, FAIRFAX, VA, 22033

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline