DoD's $135.6M contract for submarine weapon systems engineering support awarded to General Dynamics Mission Systems
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $135,610,759 ($135.6M)
Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-10-01
End Date: 2025-02-01
Contract Duration: 5,602 days
Daily Burn Rate: $24.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: UNITED STATES (US) SSBN FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM (FCS), SSGN ATTACK WEAPON CONTROL SYSTEM (AWCS), AND COMMON MISSILE COMPARTMENT (CMC) ENGINEERING SUPPORT.
Place of Performance
Location: PITTSFIELD, BERKSHIRE County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01201
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $135.6 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: UNITED STATES (US) SSBN FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM (FCS), SSGN ATTACK WEAPON CONTROL SYSTEM (AWCS), AND COMMON MISSILE COMPARTMENT (CMC) ENGINEERING SUPPORT. Key points: 1. Contract provides critical engineering services for U.S. Navy's strategic submarine weapon systems. 2. Long-term contract duration of over 15 years indicates a sustained need for these specialized services. 3. The contract type (Cost Plus Incentive Fee) suggests a focus on performance and cost control. 4. General Dynamics Mission Systems has a significant track record in defense contracting. 5. The engineering services sector is vital for maintaining and modernizing complex defense platforms. 6. This contract supports the U.S. Navy's Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) and Guided Missile Submarine (SSGN) programs.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $135.6 million over its extended period represents a significant investment in specialized engineering support. Benchmarking this against similar long-term, complex defense system support contracts suggests a reasonable allocation of resources, given the critical nature of the systems involved. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure aims to incentivize cost efficiency and performance, which can lead to better value if managed effectively. However, detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to independent engineering cost estimates would be necessary for a more precise value-for-money assessment.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded, potentially due to specific technical requirements or existing relationships. The exact reasons for excluding other potential bidders are not detailed, but this approach can sometimes limit the breadth of competition. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'exclusion of sources' suggests a more focused competition than a truly open bid.
Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers do not benefit from the lowest possible price that a broader competitive process might yield. However, if the excluded sources lacked the highly specialized expertise required, this approach could ensure the best technical solution, which is crucial for national security.
Public Impact
The U.S. Navy's strategic submarine fleet, crucial for national defense and deterrence, benefits from the continuous engineering support provided. Services delivered include engineering support for Fire Control Systems (FCS), Attack Weapon Control Systems (AWCS), and Common Missile Compartments (CMC). The geographic impact is primarily within the U.S. defense industrial base, supporting specialized engineering firms and personnel. Workforce implications include the employment of highly skilled engineers and technical specialists in the defense sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts if not rigorously managed.
- Reliance on a single primary contractor for critical, long-term engineering support could pose supply chain risks.
- The 'exclusion of sources' in competition limits the potential for broader price discovery and innovation.
- Long contract duration may reduce flexibility to adapt to rapidly evolving technological requirements without costly modifications.
Positive Signals
- Ensures continuity of essential engineering services for vital national security assets.
- General Dynamics Mission Systems has demonstrated expertise in complex defense systems.
- The CPIF contract structure incentivizes contractor performance and cost management.
- Long-term nature of the contract provides stability for specialized workforce and R&D investment.
- Supports the modernization and readiness of the U.S. Navy's strategic submarine force.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting the defense industry's complex weapon systems. The market for such specialized engineering support is characterized by high barriers to entry due to stringent security requirements, technical expertise, and established relationships with government agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish precisely due to the unique nature of submarine weapon systems, but overall U.S. defense spending on engineering and technical services runs into billions annually, reflecting the critical role of these services in maintaining military readiness and technological superiority.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component (ss: false, sb: false). As a large, complex engineering support contract, the primary awardee is a major defense contractor. There may be subcontracting opportunities for small businesses within the supply chain, but the direct award is not focused on small business participation. The impact on the small business ecosystem is indirect, relying on the prime contractor's subcontracting strategy.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight is likely managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices, with potential involvement from the Department of Defense's Inspector General for audits and investigations. The CPIF contract type includes performance metrics and cost targets that are subject to review. Transparency is facilitated through contract awards databases, but detailed operational oversight and performance reviews are typically internal to the government and contractor.
Related Government Programs
- US SSBN Fire Control System (FCS) Modernization
- US SSGN Attack Weapon Control System (AWCS) Sustainment
- Common Missile Compartment (CMC) Integration Support
- Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) Engineering Services
- Strategic Weapons Systems Support Contracts
Risk Flags
- Limited competition due to source exclusion.
- Potential for cost overruns in CPIF contracts.
- Long-term dependency on a single contractor.
- Complexity of systems requires specialized, potentially scarce expertise.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, submarine-systems, engineering-services, general-dynamics-mission-systems, cost-plus-incentive-fee, limited-competition, long-term-contract, national-security, weapon-systems, massachusetts
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $135.6 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. UNITED STATES (US) SSBN FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM (FCS), SSGN ATTACK WEAPON CONTROL SYSTEM (AWCS), AND COMMON MISSILE COMPARTMENT (CMC) ENGINEERING SUPPORT.
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 (Department of the Navy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $135.6 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-10-01. End: 2025-02-01.
What is the track record of General Dynamics Mission Systems in supporting similar naval weapon systems?
General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS) has a long and extensive track record in developing, integrating, and supporting complex defense systems, including those for naval platforms. They are a key player in the U.S. defense industrial base, known for their work on command and control systems, sonar systems, and other critical technologies for submarines and surface vessels. Their experience with fire control systems and weapon control systems is substantial, often involving multi-year contracts with the Department of the Navy. This history suggests a deep understanding of the technical requirements, security protocols, and operational needs associated with systems like the SSBN FCS and SSGN AWCS, making them a logical choice for sustained engineering support.
How does the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure typically perform in terms of cost control for long-term defense contracts?
Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts are designed to share risks and rewards between the government and the contractor. They establish target costs and target profits, with provisions for adjusting the fee based on performance against cost, schedule, and technical objectives. In theory, CPIF can encourage cost efficiency because the contractor shares in any savings below the target cost or absorbs a portion of any overruns. However, the effectiveness of CPIF in controlling costs heavily depends on the clarity of the performance metrics, the accuracy of the initial cost targets, and the rigor of government oversight. For long-term contracts, maintaining accurate targets and effectively monitoring performance can be challenging, potentially leading to cost growth if not managed diligently.
What are the primary risks associated with relying on a single contractor for critical submarine weapon system engineering support over an extended period?
The primary risks of relying on a single contractor for critical, long-term engineering support include potential complacency, reduced incentive for innovation, and vulnerability to contractor-specific issues. If the contractor faces financial difficulties, key personnel departures, or internal operational problems, it could significantly disrupt the availability of essential support for the weapon systems. Furthermore, a lack of competition over time can lead to price escalation and a reduced ability for the government to leverage alternative solutions or technologies. This single-source dependency necessitates robust government oversight and contingency planning to mitigate these risks.
Can the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' approach still yield competitive pricing?
Yes, 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' can still yield competitive pricing, but the degree of competition is inherently limited compared to a truly open solicitation. The exclusion of specific sources implies that the government has determined that only a subset of potential offerors possesses the necessary qualifications, capabilities, or has access to proprietary information required for the contract. Within this narrowed field, multiple bidders can still engage in a competitive process, driving prices down through their proposals. However, the absence of other qualified bidders means that the potential for price reduction is capped by the number and competitiveness of the remaining offerors.
What is the historical spending trend for engineering support of U.S. Navy submarine weapon systems?
Historical spending on engineering support for U.S. Navy submarine weapon systems has been substantial and generally increasing, reflecting the aging of existing platforms and the ongoing need for modernization and sustainment of complex technologies. The Navy consistently allocates significant portions of its budget to maintaining the readiness and technological edge of its strategic submarine fleet. This includes funding for research, development, systems integration, maintenance, and lifecycle support of critical components like fire control systems, weapon control systems, and missile compartments. The trend indicates a sustained, long-term requirement for specialized engineering services, often awarded through multi-year contracts to prime defense contractors.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: FIRE CONTROL EQPT.
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: N0003010Q0005
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp
Address: 100 PLASTICS AVE, PITTSFIELD, MA, 01201
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $145,944,365
Exercised Options: $136,438,975
Current Obligation: $135,610,759
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-10-01
Current End Date: 2025-02-01
Potential End Date: 2025-02-01 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-04-22
More Contracts from General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
- 200410!005969!2100!w15p7t!usa Communications-Electronics !w15p7t04ce405 !A!N! !N! ! !20040716!20111230!046863929!046863929!001381284!n!general Dynamics Decision Syst!8201 E Mcdowell Road !scottsdale !az!85257!65000!013!04!scottsdale !maricopa !arizona !+000010000000!n!n!000000000000!ac63!rdte/Electronics&communication Eq-Adv Tech DEV !A7 !electronics and Communication Equip !360 !jtrs Cluster I !541330!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!b! !A!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $1.5B (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $1.4B (Department of Defense)
- THE Space Network (SN) Consists of a Space Segment Comprised of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (tdrss), and a Ground Segment (sngs). the SN Provides the Capability for Global Space-To-Ground Telecommunications and Tracking Coverage for LOW Earth Orbit (LEO) and Near-Earth Spaceflight Missions, Including Both Robotic and Human Space Flight. the Sngs Includes Facilities and Systems Located AT the White Sands Complex (WSC) AT LAS Cruces, NM the Guam Remote Ground Terminal (grgt) AT Guam and Space Network Expansion (SNE) East AT Blossom Point, MD. the Purpose of the Sgss Project IS to Implement a Modern Ground Segment That Will Enable the SN to Continue to Deliver High Quality Services to the SN Community, Meet Stakeholder Requirements, and Significantly Reduce Required Operations and Maintenance Resources — $1.2B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Federal Contract — $1.2B (Department of Defense)
- SDA Tranche 1 Operations and Integration — $861.6M (Department of Defense)
View all General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)