DoD awards $53.4M for SSBN Fire Control Sub-system, UK FCS, and SSGN AWCS, with no competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $53,430,123 ($53.4M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-10-01

End Date: 2021-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,003 days

Daily Burn Rate: $53.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: FY19 FC UK EFFORT. FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2019 PROCUREMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINMENT EFFORTS FOR THE UNITED STATES (US) SSBN FIRE CONTROL SUB-SYSTEM (FCS), THE UNITED KINGDOM (UK) FCS AND THE US SSGN ATTACK WEAPON CONTROL SYSTEM (AWCS), INCLUDING TRAINING AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT AND US/UK SHIPBOARD DATA SYSTEM.

Place of Performance

Location: PITTSFIELD, BERKSHIRE County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01201

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $53.4 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: FY19 FC UK EFFORT. FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2019 PROCUREMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINMENT EFFORTS FOR THE UNITED STATES (US) SSBN FIRE CONTROL SUB-SYSTEM (FCS), THE UNITED KINGDOM (UK) FCS AND THE US SSGN ATTACK WEAPON CONTROL SYSTEM (AWCS), INCLUDING TRAINING AND SUPPORT … Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical naval defense systems for both US and UK. 2. Sole-source award raises questions about price discovery and potential cost efficiencies. 3. Long contract duration (1003 days) suggests complex, long-term sustainment needs. 4. Contract type (Cost Plus Incentive Fee) allows for shared risk and reward. 5. Engineering services (NAICS 541330) are central to the contract's scope. 6. No small business set-aside indicates a focus on large prime contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $53.4 million for engineering services related to fire control and weapon control systems appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized defense procurements of this nature. However, without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money effectively. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type suggests that the government aims to control costs by incentivizing the contractor to meet certain performance targets, but the ultimate cost can still fluctuate. Further analysis would require comparison with similar sole-source contracts for comparable systems or components.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one contractor, General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., was solicited. This approach is typically used when a unique capability or proprietary technology is required, or when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms that typically occur in a competitive bidding environment, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple firms had competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competition. Without bids from other qualified contractors, it's harder to ensure the price reflects the best possible value. This sole-source award necessitates robust government oversight to manage costs effectively.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the United States Navy and the Royal Navy, ensuring the operational readiness of their SSBN and SSGN fleets. Services delivered include procurement, research and development, and sustainment for critical fire control and weapon control systems. The contract supports advanced naval defense capabilities, crucial for national security and strategic deterrence. Workforce implications include highly skilled engineering, technical, and support roles within General Dynamics Mission Systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
Cost Plus Incentive Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully.
Long contract duration increases the risk of scope creep and evolving requirements.
Lack of small business participation may limit opportunities for smaller innovative firms in this defense sector.

Positive Signals

Focus on critical, high-technology defense systems ensures national security capabilities.
Contract type incentivizes contractor performance and cost control, aligning interests.
Sustainment efforts ensure long-term operational readiness of vital naval assets.
Experienced contractor (General Dynamics Mission Systems) likely possesses the necessary expertise for these complex systems.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense Industrial Base sector, specifically focusing on advanced engineering and sustainment for naval weapon systems. The market for such specialized defense components is typically dominated by a few large, established contractors due to high barriers to entry, including significant R&D investment, security clearances, and specialized manufacturing capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique nature of these systems, but overall US defense spending on naval platforms and associated technologies runs into billions annually.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to include a small business set-aside, as indicated by the 'sb: false' field. The prime contractor, General Dynamics Mission Systems, is a large defense contractor. While the contract itself is not set aside for small businesses, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors to General Dynamics. However, the absence of a specific set-aside suggests that the primary focus is on the capabilities of the large prime, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem through this specific award is likely limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract is likely managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), as indicated by the 'sa' field. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure requires diligent monitoring of costs and performance to ensure the incentive goals are met and that the government receives value. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting mechanisms and audits. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

US SSBN Fire Control Systems
UK SSBN Fire Control Systems
US SSGN Attack Weapon Control Systems
Naval Weapon Systems Sustainment
Defense Engineering Services
Strategic Weapons Systems Procurement

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Potential for cost overruns
Lack of competitive pricing
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $53.4 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. FY19 FC UK EFFORT. FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2019 PROCUREMENT, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINMENT EFFORTS FOR THE UNITED STATES (US) SSBN FIRE CONTROL SUB-SYSTEM (FCS), THE UNITED KINGDOM (UK) FCS AND THE US SSGN ATTACK WEAPON CONTROL SYSTEM (AWCS), INCLUDING TRAINING AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT AND US/UK SHIPBOARD DATA SYSTEM.

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: 2018-10-01. End: 2021-06-30.

What is the track record of General Dynamics Mission Systems in delivering similar naval defense systems?

General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS) has a long and established history of developing and supporting complex defense systems, including those for naval platforms. They are a major contractor for the U.S. Navy and other defense agencies, involved in areas such as submarine combat systems, sonar systems, and command and control systems. Their experience with the U.S. SSBN Fire Control Sub-system (FCS) and related programs suggests a deep understanding of the technical requirements and operational needs. GDMS has consistently been a prime contractor on large, high-value defense contracts, indicating a proven ability to manage complex projects, though specific performance metrics for past contracts would require deeper data analysis.

How does the $53.4 million contract value compare to similar sole-source procurements for naval weapon control systems?

Benchmarking the $53.4 million contract value for sole-source procurements is challenging without access to proprietary data on similar systems. However, considering the complexity and criticality of fire control and weapon control systems for strategic assets like SSBNs and SSGNs, this value appears within a plausible range for research, development, and sustainment efforts over a multi-year period. Sole-source awards inherently lack direct price comparison, but the government's contracting officers are expected to conduct market research and price analyses to ensure reasonableness. The duration of the contract (over 3 years) and the CPIF structure also influence the total potential expenditure, making direct comparisons difficult without detailed scope and performance data.

What are the primary risks associated with this sole-source, Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract?

The primary risks associated with this sole-source CPIF contract include: 1. **Cost Overruns:** While CPIF aims to incentivize cost control, if the target costs are set too high or performance incentives are not well-defined, costs can still escalate beyond initial estimates. 2. **Lack of Innovation:** Sole-source awards can stifle innovation by not exposing the requirement to a competitive market that might offer more cost-effective or technologically advanced solutions. 3. **Contractor Leverage:** The sole-source nature gives the contractor significant leverage in negotiations, potentially leading to less favorable terms for the government. 4. **Scope Creep:** The long duration increases the risk of requirements changing, leading to contract modifications and increased costs if not managed rigorously. 5. **Performance Measurement:** Accurately defining and measuring performance metrics for incentive fees in complex systems can be difficult, potentially leading to disputes or ineffective incentives.

What is the historical spending pattern for US/UK SSBN and SSGN fire control and weapon control systems?

Historical spending on U.S. and U.K. SSBN (Submersible Ship Ballistic Nuclear) and SSGN (Submersible Guided Missile Nuclear) fire control and weapon control systems represents a significant and consistent investment within defense budgets. These systems are critical components of strategic nuclear deterrents and require continuous research, development, procurement, and sustainment. Annual spending can fluctuate based on modernization cycles, new platform construction, and sustainment needs. While specific figures for this exact sub-system procurement are $53.4 million for FY19, broader categories like 'Naval Weapons Systems' or 'Submarine Modernization' often involve billions of dollars annually across the U.S. Department of Defense. The long lifecycle of these platforms means sustained funding is typical.

How does the engineering services component (NAICS 541330) contribute to the overall contract value and objectives?

The engineering services component, classified under NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services), is fundamental to this contract. It encompasses a broad range of activities critical for the development, integration, testing, and sustainment of complex defense systems like fire control and weapon control. This includes design, analysis, simulation, prototyping, technical documentation, and lifecycle support. Given the $53.4 million contract value and its focus on R&D and sustainment, a substantial portion of this funding is allocated to highly specialized engineering expertise. These services ensure the systems meet stringent performance, reliability, and safety requirements essential for naval operations and strategic deterrence.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N0003019R0003

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Wico Limited

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: $54,436,889

Exercised Options: $53,779,317

Current Obligation: $53,430,123

Actual Outlays: $6,310,266

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 122

Total Subaward Amount: $13,284,425

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline