DoD awards $31.7M for MUOS Ground System Sustainment to General Dynamics Mission Systems

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,684,831 ($31.7M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-07-29

End Date: 2025-02-28

Contract Duration: 945 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: LABOR - MUOS GROUND SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT

Place of Performance

Location: SCOTTSDALE, MARICOPA County, ARIZONA, 85257

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.7 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: LABOR - MUOS GROUND SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a competitive process with specific justifications. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), which incentivizes contractor performance through award fees. 3. Performance period spans 945 days, from July 2022 to February 2025, covering a significant sustainment phase. 4. The contract is a Delivery Order under a larger contract vehicle, suggesting it's part of an ongoing program. 5. The primary NAICS code (541330) points to Engineering Services, aligning with the nature of system sustainment. 6. The contract is not set aside for small businesses, and no subcontracting information is immediately available. 7. The award is managed by the Department of the Air Force, indicating a specific branch's requirement. 8. The contract is for the MUOS Ground System Sustainment, a critical component of military communications.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics. CPAF contracts can offer good value if the award fee structure effectively incentivizes desired outcomes and cost control. However, the potential for cost overruns exists, requiring robust oversight. Comparing this to similar sustainment contracts for complex ground systems would provide better context on pricing and efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, specific sources were excluded, likely due to unique capabilities or prior involvement. The exact number of bidders and the rationale for exclusions are not detailed, making a full assessment of competition dynamics difficult. This procurement method can sometimes lead to higher prices if the pool of eligible bidders is significantly narrowed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may face higher costs if the exclusion of certain sources limits competitive pressure. Transparency regarding the reasons for source exclusion is crucial for ensuring fair pricing and maximizing value for taxpayer funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and specifically the Department of the Air Force, ensuring the operational readiness of the MUOS ground system. This contract delivers essential sustainment services, including maintenance, support, and potential upgrades, to a critical military communication infrastructure. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the locations where the MUOS ground system is operated and maintained, primarily within the United States. Workforce implications include the employment of engineers, technicians, and support staff by General Dynamics Mission Systems to fulfill the contract requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts if not managed tightly.
Limited transparency on the specific reasons for excluding sources in the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award.
Lack of detailed performance metrics or cost breakdowns makes independent value assessment difficult.
The sustainment nature of the contract implies ongoing costs rather than a one-time acquisition, requiring long-term budget considerations.

Positive Signals

Award fee structure incentivizes contractor performance, potentially leading to higher quality service delivery.
General Dynamics Mission Systems is an established defense contractor with experience in complex systems.
The contract is for sustainment, ensuring the continued operation of a vital military communication system.
Delivery Order under a larger contract vehicle suggests a structured and potentially pre-vetted acquisition process.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting complex defense systems. The market for sustainment of specialized military ground systems is often dominated by a few large, experienced contractors due to high barriers to entry, including security clearances and technical expertise. Spending in this area is critical for maintaining the operational readiness of communication networks like the Mobile User Objective System (MUOS). Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing sustainment contracts for other satellite communication ground segments or complex command and control systems.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting goals for small businesses within the provided data. General Dynamics Mission Systems, as a large prime contractor, may engage small businesses as subcontractors, but this is not explicitly mandated or detailed in the award information. The absence of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for smaller firms to directly compete for this specific contract were limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily be conducted by the Department of the Air Force contracting and program management offices. As a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, performance monitoring and the assessment of award fee criteria are crucial oversight functions. Transparency regarding the award fee determination process and any potential audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the Inspector General would be key accountability measures.

Related Government Programs

Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) Program
Defense Communications Systems
Ground System Maintenance and Support
Engineering Services for Defense

Risk Flags

Limited transparency on source exclusion rationale
Potential for cost growth in CPAF contracts
Difficulty in independent value assessment without detailed metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.7 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. LABOR - MUOS GROUND SYSTEM SUSTAINMENT

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 Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-07-29. End: 2025-02-28.

What is the track record of General Dynamics Mission Systems in supporting similar complex ground systems for the Department of Defense?

General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS) has a long-standing history of providing complex systems and services to the Department of Defense. They are known for their work on command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems, as well as space and intelligence solutions. GDMS has been involved in various aspects of satellite communications, including ground segment development and sustainment. Their experience with programs like the MUOS, or similar secure communication networks, suggests a strong capability to handle the technical and operational demands of this contract. However, a detailed review of past performance on specific, comparable contracts, including any past performance issues or successes, would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Award Fee) compare to other contract types for system sustainment, and what are the potential value implications?

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts, like this one, involve the contractor being reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fee that has a fixed component and a variable component based on performance. This structure aims to incentivize the contractor to meet or exceed performance objectives while managing costs. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPAF offers more flexibility for complex, evolving requirements but carries a higher risk of cost growth if performance targets are not met or if costs are not well-controlled. Compared to Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), the award fee is often more subjective and tied to broader performance metrics rather than specific cost/schedule targets. The value implication hinges on the effectiveness of the award fee criteria in driving desired outcomes and the rigor of oversight in managing costs. If well-executed, CPAF can yield good value; if poorly managed, it can be costly.

What are the primary risks associated with sustaining the MUOS Ground System, and how does this contract address them?

Primary risks in sustaining the MUOS Ground System likely include technological obsolescence, cybersecurity threats, integration challenges with evolving military networks, and the potential for performance degradation over time. This contract, by focusing on sustainment, directly addresses the risk of performance degradation by ensuring ongoing maintenance, repair, and support. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure incentivizes General Dynamics Mission Systems to maintain high performance standards and potentially identify and mitigate risks proactively to earn award fees. However, the contract's effectiveness in addressing risks like technological obsolescence or cybersecurity depends on the specific scope of work, the contractor's proactive measures, and the government's oversight in requiring updates and security enhancements.

What is the historical spending pattern for MUOS Ground System sustainment, and how does this $31.7M award fit within that trend?

Without access to historical spending data specifically for MUOS Ground System sustainment, it's difficult to place this $31.7 million award within a precise trend. However, sustainment contracts for complex, long-lifecycle systems like MUOS are typically significant and recurring expenses. The duration of this delivery order (945 days, approx. 2.6 years) suggests it represents a substantial portion of the annual sustainment budget for the ground segment. If similar delivery orders have been issued periodically, this award would be consistent with an ongoing sustainment strategy. A broader analysis of the total MUOS program budget, including acquisition and sustainment phases over its lifecycle, would be needed to fully contextualize this specific award amount.

What are the implications of the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement method for cost efficiency and innovation?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method implies that the initial solicitation was broad, but specific sources were later excluded from the final competition. This can have mixed implications. On one hand, it suggests an attempt to ensure a competitive environment among eligible parties. On the other hand, the exclusion of sources, if not rigorously justified and transparently communicated, can limit the competitive pool, potentially leading to less aggressive pricing and reduced pressure for innovation. If the excluded sources possessed unique capabilities or offered significantly different approaches, their absence might stifle innovation. The cost efficiency depends heavily on the number of remaining bidders and the justification for exclusions; a well-justified exclusion of a few non-viable sources might still yield competitive pricing, whereas arbitrary exclusions could inflate costs.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N0003918R0146

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Wico Limited

Address: 8201 E MCDOWELL ROAD, SCOTTSDALE, AZ, 85257

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,137,990

Exercised Options: $33,137,990

Current Obligation: $31,684,831

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 9

Total Subaward Amount: $3,137,275

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0003920D0146

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline