DoD's $142.7M Contract for G2 Satellite Solutions Raises Questions on Competition and Value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,770,000 ($16.8M)

Contractor: G2 Satellite Solutions Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-02-28

End Date: 2010-01-31

Contract Duration: 1,798 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: 200505!052173!1700!N00039!SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS !N0003905C0022 !A!N! !N! ! !20050228!20100131!142764120!142764120!142764120!N!G2 SATELLITE SOLUTIONS CORPORA!1801 K STREET, NW !WASHINGTON !DC!20006!43000!037!06!LONG BEACH !LOS ANGELES !CALIFORNIA!+000003600000!N!N!000021500000!5895!MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !A2 !MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS !000 !* !334220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !D!N!J!1!001!N!1G!Z!N!Z! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!A!N! ! ! ! !1739!N00039!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: BETHESDA, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20817

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.8 million to G2 SATELLITE SOLUTIONS CORPORATION for work described as: 200505!052173!1700!N00039!SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS !N0003905C0022 !A!N! !N! ! !20050228!20100131!142764120!142764120!142764120!N!G2 SATELLITE SOLUTIONS CORPORA!1801 K STREET, NW !WASHINGTON !DC!20006!43000!037!06!LONG BEACH !LOS … Key points: 1. The contract awarded to G2 Satellite Solutions Corporation for $142.7 million lacks clear justification for its competitive approach. 2. The 'NOT COMPETED' status suggests potential missed opportunities for better pricing and innovative solutions. 3. The duration of the contract (nearly 5 years) and its significant value warrant scrutiny regarding ongoing necessity and cost-effectiveness. 4. The sector, 'MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT', is broad, and the specific need for this procurement requires further clarification.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $142.7 million over approximately 5 years for 'MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT' appears high without a clear competitive benchmark. The lack of competition makes it difficult to assess if this price reflects fair market value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was explicitly marked as 'NOT COMPETED', indicating a sole-source or limited competition award. This significantly limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition likely resulted in a higher price than could have been achieved through a more open bidding process, impacting taxpayer funds.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may have overpaid due to the lack of competitive bidding. The government may not have received the most innovative or cost-effective communication solutions available. Lack of transparency in the procurement process can erode public trust in government spending. The long contract duration raises concerns about adaptability to evolving technologies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential Overpricing
Long Contract Duration
Unclear Justification for Sole Source

Positive Signals

Contract Awarded
Specific Vendor Identified

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing' sector. Spending in this area can vary widely based on technological advancements and defense needs. Benchmarks are difficult without specific equipment details.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication in the provided data whether small businesses were involved in this procurement, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. The sole-source nature of the award further reduces the likelihood of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' designation suggests that standard oversight procedures for competitive bidding may have been bypassed. Further review is needed to understand the justification for this approach and ensure accountability.

Related Government Programs

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Navy Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competitive bidding raises concerns about price fairness.
Potential for overpayment due to sole-source award.
Long contract duration may not align with rapid technological changes.
Insufficient justification provided for non-competitive award.
Lack of transparency regarding specific equipment and its necessity.
Potential missed opportunities for innovation from a wider market.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.8 million to G2 SATELLITE SOLUTIONS CORPORATION. 200505!052173!1700!N00039!SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE SYSTEMS !N0003905C0022 !A!N! !N! ! !20050228!20100131!142764120!142764120!142764120!N!G2 SATELLITE SOLUTIONS CORPORA!1801 K STREET, NW !WASHINGTON !DC!20006!43000!037!06!LONG BEACH !LOS ANGELES !CALIFORNIA!+000003600000!N!N!000021500000!5895!MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !A2 !MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS !000 !* !334220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is G2 SATELLITE SOLUTIONS 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 $16.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-02-28. End: 2010-01-31.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were alternative competitive strategies considered?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A thorough review would require accessing the contract file to understand the specific justification cited by the Department of the Navy, such as urgency, unique capabilities, or lack of market research. Without this, it's impossible to determine if alternatives were explored or if this was the only viable option.

How does the $142.7 million price compare to similar communication equipment contracts awarded competitively?

Direct comparison is challenging without knowing the exact specifications of the 'MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT'. However, the absence of competition inherently raises concerns that this price may not be optimized. Benchmarking against similar, competitively procured systems would be necessary to assess value for money.

What is the expected return on investment or measurable benefit derived from this $142.7 million expenditure over its nearly five-year duration?

The provided data does not detail the specific deliverables or expected outcomes of this contract. Assessing ROI or measurable benefits would require examining performance metrics, operational impact reports, and the strategic importance of the procured communication equipment to the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: B C Partners Holdings Ltd (UEI: 424898146)

Address: 1801 K STREET, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 98

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline