Navy awards $28.4M contract for USS Annapolis DCMAV planning and execution to Electric Boat Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,397,792 ($28.4M)

Contractor: Electric Boat Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-04-02

End Date: 2012-12-04

Contract Duration: 246 days

Daily Burn Rate: $115.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF USS ANNAPOLIS DCMAV

Place of Performance

Location: GROTON, NEW LONDON County, CONNECTICUT, 06340

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.4 million to ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION for work described as: PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF USS ANNAPOLIS DCMAV Key points: 1. Contract awarded for planning and execution of a specific vessel's DCMAV. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies. 3. A single award was made to Electric Boat Corporation, a known entity in shipbuilding. 4. The contract duration is approximately 8 months. 5. The firm fixed-price structure aims to control costs for the government. 6. This award falls under the Ship Building and Repairing NAICS code.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $28.4 million for planning and execution of a DCMAV is difficult to benchmark without more specific details on the scope of work. However, given the specialized nature of naval shipbuilding and repair, costs can be substantial. The firm fixed-price contract type suggests an attempt to cap expenses, but the lack of competition limits the ability to assess if the price is truly competitive against market alternatives. Further analysis would require understanding the specific deliverables and comparing them to similar planning or execution contracts for naval vessels.

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 among multiple potential bidders. This approach is typically used when only one contractor possesses the necessary unique capabilities, qualifications, or when urgency dictates a rapid award. The lack of competition means the Department of the Navy did not benefit from a bidding process that could have driven down prices through market forces. It is crucial to understand the justification for this sole-source award to ensure it was indeed necessary and that the public interest was served.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the government does not have the benefit of competitive pricing. This limits the government's leverage in negotiating the best possible price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Navy, which receives services for the planning and execution of the USS Annapolis DCMAV. The contract supports the operational readiness and maintenance of naval assets. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the contractor's facilities in Connecticut. The contract supports specialized labor within the shipbuilding and repair sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may result in a higher price than if the contract had been competed.
Sole-source awards require strong justification to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently.
The specific scope of 'planning and execution' needs clear definition to ensure deliverables meet expectations.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type helps to control costs and provides budget certainty.
Award to an established contractor like Electric Boat Corporation suggests access to specialized expertise.
The contract supports critical naval infrastructure maintenance and readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Ship Building and Repairing sector, a critical component of the defense industrial base. The market is characterized by high barriers to entry due to specialized facilities, skilled labor, and stringent regulatory requirements. Major players often have long-standing relationships with government agencies. Spending in this sector is heavily influenced by defense budgets and naval modernization programs. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other major naval vessel construction, repair, or modernization contracts.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, the contractor, Electric Boat Corporation, is a large business. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans to small businesses. Without such details, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal, though large prime contractors often engage small businesses for specialized support services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) would likely be involved in contract administration and ensuring performance. Given the nature of the work, there may be specific quality assurance and inspection protocols. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance metrics and oversight reports may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Naval Shipbuilding and Repair
Ship Maintenance and Modernization
Defense Procurement
Naval Vessel Construction

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing.
Lack of transparency on specific scope of work.
Potential for cost inefficiencies due to lack of competition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.4 million to ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION. PLANNING AND EXECUTION OF USS ANNAPOLIS DCMAV

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-04-02. End: 2012-12-04.

What specific services are included under 'planning and execution of USS Annapolis DCMAV'?

The term 'DCMAV' likely refers to a specific type of inspection, maintenance, or overhaul process for naval vessels, possibly related to Damage Control or a similar critical system. 'Planning and execution' suggests the contract covers the entire lifecycle of this task, from initial logistical and technical planning to the actual performance of the work. This could encompass detailed scheduling, resource allocation, technical procedure development, execution of the maintenance or inspection, and final reporting. Without further clarification from the awarding agency, the precise scope remains somewhat ambiguous, but it is understood to be a critical component of maintaining the operational readiness and safety of the USS Annapolis.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar DCMAV contracts for naval vessels?

Historical spending patterns for similar DCMAV contracts are not readily available in the provided data. However, naval vessel maintenance and modernization are significant and recurring expenditures for the Department of Defense. Contracts for such services can range from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the vessel class, the scope of work, and the complexity of the required maintenance or upgrade. Factors influencing cost include the age of the vessel, the specific systems requiring attention, and the urgency of the work. The $28.4 million awarded here suggests a substantial, but not unprecedented, investment for a specific planning and execution phase.

What is Electric Boat Corporation's track record with the Department of the Navy for similar services?

Electric Boat Corporation (EBC) has a long and extensive track record with the Department of the Navy, primarily as a major designer and builder of submarines. While this specific contract is for 'planning and execution of USS Annapolis DCMAV,' EBC's core business involves complex naval engineering and construction. They are known for managing large-scale, technically demanding projects. Their experience in shipbuilding and major overhauls suggests they possess the necessary expertise and infrastructure to undertake such planning and execution tasks, even if DCMAV is a specific service within a broader maintenance or modernization context. Their history with the Navy indicates a strong existing relationship and familiarity with naval requirements.

How does the firm fixed-price contract type mitigate risk for the government in this context?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is designed to provide the government with cost certainty and mitigate financial risk. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor, Electric Boat Corporation, is obligated to complete the work for a predetermined price, regardless of their actual costs incurred. This shifts the risk of cost overruns from the government to the contractor. For the Department of the Navy, this means the $28.4 million award represents the maximum liability for this specific contract. This structure incentivizes the contractor to manage their resources efficiently and control costs to maximize their profit margin, while ensuring the government knows its budgetary commitment upfront.

What are the potential implications of this contract being sole-sourced for future competition?

A sole-source award, by definition, bypasses the competitive process. This means that other qualified contractors did not have the opportunity to bid on this specific contract. While there may have been valid justifications for the sole-source nature of this award (e.g., unique capabilities, urgency), it can set a precedent. If the 'planning and execution' of DCMAV services becomes consistently awarded to a single provider without competition, it could reduce the incentive for other firms to develop similar capabilities or for the incumbent to offer competitive pricing in the future. It also limits the government's ability to explore innovative solutions or cost-saving approaches that might emerge from a competitive bidding environment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Ship and Boat Building › Ship Building and Repairing

Product/Service Code: SHIPS, SMALL CRAFT, PONTOON, DOCKS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N0002411R4320

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 75 EASTERN POINT RD, GROTON, CT, 06340

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: $28,397,792

Exercised Options: $28,397,792

Current Obligation: $28,397,792

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline