DoD's $114M contract for armament training devices awarded to United Defense, L.P. in 2002, with a significant portion spent by 2004

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $114,472,527 ($114.5M)

Contractor: BAE Systems Land & Armaments L.P.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-11-07

End Date: 2008-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,154 days

Daily Burn Rate: $53.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (APPLIES TO AWARDS WHERE TWO OR MORE OF THE ABOVE APPLY)

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200302!000012!1700!A8303 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133903C0004 !A!N! !N! !20021107!20041031!085302958!098060218!175406842!N!UNITED DEFENSE, L P !1205 COLEMAN AVENUE !SANTA CLARA !CA!95052!01852!015!01!ANNISTON !CALHOUN !ALABAMA !+000012753379!N!N!000136763512!6920!ARMAMENT TRAINING DEVICES !C9A!CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !333319!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!U!J!1!001!N!1A!A!Y!F! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: SANTA CLARA, SANTA CLARA County, CALIFORNIA, 95050

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $114.5 million to BAE SYSTEMS LAND & ARMAMENTS L.P. for work described as: 200302!000012!1700!A8303 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133903C0004 !A!N! !N! !20021107!20041031!085302958!098060218!175406842!N!UNITED DEFENSE, L P !1205 COLEMAN AVENUE !SANTA CLARA !CA!95052!01852!015!01!ANNISTON !CALHO… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for armament training devices, indicating a focus on military readiness and training capabilities. 2. The award to United Defense, L.P. suggests a consolidation or specific capability within the defense sector. 3. A long contract duration (2154 days) implies a sustained need for these training devices. 4. The 'NOT COMPETED' status raises questions about potential cost efficiencies and market exploration. 5. The contract's value of over $114 million signifies a substantial investment in defense training infrastructure. 6. The geographic location of the contractor in Santa Clara, CA, may point to specific regional industrial strengths.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award amount of $114,472,527 for armament training devices is substantial. Without specific details on the nature of these devices, it's difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the 'NOT COMPETED' status inherently limits the ability to assess competitive pricing and value for money. The contract was awarded to United Defense, L.P., which has since been acquired by BAE Systems. Further analysis would require understanding the specific deliverables and comparing them to industry standards or alternative solutions that might have been available through a competitive process.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a 'NOT COMPETED' basis, indicating a sole-source or limited competition procurement. This typically occurs when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or in cases of urgent need. The lack of a competitive bidding process means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in open competition, potentially leading to higher costs than might have been achieved otherwise.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure to drive down prices. The lack of competition also limits transparency regarding the justification for the chosen contractor and the pricing structure.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel who will utilize the armament training devices to enhance their combat readiness and skills. The services delivered include the provision of specialized equipment crucial for realistic and effective military training scenarios. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Army, with potential deployment to various training facilities. Workforce implications may include jobs at the contractor's facility in Santa Clara, California, and potentially at military training installations where the devices are used.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer funds.
The 'NOT COMPETED' status limits transparency into the justification for selecting a single contractor.
The long duration of the contract could indicate potential for cost overruns or scope creep without competitive checks.
Absence of small business subcontracting data makes it difficult to assess benefits to smaller enterprises.

Positive Signals

Award to a known defense contractor suggests a level of established capability and reliability.
The substantial value indicates a significant investment in critical military training infrastructure.
The contract was awarded to United Defense, L.P., a company with a history in defense manufacturing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the defense industrial base, specifically related to military training equipment. The market for armament training devices is specialized, serving the unique needs of armed forces. Spending in this sector is driven by defense budgets, geopolitical factors, and the evolution of military technology. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for similar training systems, simulators, or armament components within the Department of Defense and allied nations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not subject to small business set-aside provisions (ss=false, sb=false). This means there was no specific requirement for a portion of the work to be performed by small businesses. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal, unless the prime contractor voluntarily engaged small businesses as subcontractors. Further information on subcontracting plans would be needed to fully assess the impact on small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and procurement regulations. Specific oversight mechanisms would include contract administration by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division, performance monitoring, and potentially audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Department of Defense Inspector General. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award, but contract modifications, payment reports, and performance reviews would be subject to internal oversight.

Related Government Programs

Military Training Equipment
Armament Systems
Defense Procurement
Naval Air Warfare Center Contracts
Department of the Army Procurement
Sole-Source Defense Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition.
Lack of detailed performance metrics.
Potential for higher costs due to non-competitive nature.
Limited transparency on justification for sole-source.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $114.5 million to BAE SYSTEMS LAND & ARMAMENTS L.P.. 200302!000012!1700!A8303 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133903C0004 !A!N! !N! !20021107!20041031!085302958!098060218!175406842!N!UNITED DEFENSE, L P !1205 COLEMAN AVENUE !SANTA CLARA !CA!95052!01852!015!01!ANNISTON !CALHOUN !ALABAMA !+000012753379!N!N!000136763512!6920!ARMAMENT TRAINING DEVICES !C9A!CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !333319!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BAE SYSTEMS LAND & ARMAMENTS L.P..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $114.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-11-07. End: 2008-09-30.

What specific types of armament training devices were procured under this contract?

The contract data indicates the product service code (PSC) is '333319', which falls under 'Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing'. The description provided is 'ARMAMENT TRAINING DEVICES'. However, the specific nature of these devices is not detailed in the provided data. They could range from simulated weapon systems and virtual reality training environments to live-fire training aids or component trainers for larger weapon platforms. Without more granular information, it's impossible to specify the exact type of devices procured. Further investigation into contract line item details or technical specifications would be necessary.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The contract was explicitly marked as 'NOT COMPETED', indicating a sole-source or limited competition award. Typical justifications for such awards include that only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, that an exception to fair opportunity applies (e.g., urgent and compelling need), or that the contract is a follow-on to a previously competed contract where only one source is deemed capable. Without access to the specific justification documentation filed with the contract award, the precise reason remains unknown. This lack of transparency is a common concern with sole-source procurements.

How does the awarded amount compare to similar contracts for armament training devices?

Benchmarking this $114.4 million contract against similar procurements is challenging without knowing the specific type and quantity of armament training devices. The market for such equipment is diverse, ranging from simple simulators to complex, integrated training systems. However, for major defense training systems, this amount represents a significant investment. A comprehensive comparison would require identifying contracts with comparable Product Service Codes (PSCs) or Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) categories, analyzing the scope of work, the technological sophistication of the devices, and the contract duration. The sole-source nature of this award also complicates direct value-for-money comparisons.

What is the track record of United Defense, L.P. in providing armament training devices?

United Defense, L.P. was a significant defense contractor known for its work in armored vehicles and weapon systems. While specific details on their track record solely for 'armament training devices' are not provided in this data snippet, their broader portfolio suggests experience in complex military hardware. The company was later acquired by BAE Systems. The award of a sole-source contract of this magnitude implies that the awarding agency believed United Defense possessed the necessary capabilities and technology. However, a deeper dive into past performance reviews and delivery history would be needed for a complete assessment.

What were the key performance indicators or milestones for this contract?

The provided data does not include specific key performance indicators (KPIs), milestones, or delivery schedules beyond the start and end dates of the contract (November 7, 2002, to October 31, 2004, with an ultimate end date of September 30, 2008, suggesting modifications or extensions). Typically, contracts of this nature would include phased deliveries, testing requirements, and performance standards related to the functionality and reliability of the training devices. The absence of this information in the summary data limits the ability to assess the contractor's performance against defined objectives.

How has spending on armament training devices evolved since this contract was awarded?

Spending on armament training devices has likely evolved significantly since this contract was awarded in 2002. Advancements in simulation technology, virtual and augmented reality, and networked training capabilities have transformed the landscape. Defense budgets fluctuate based on geopolitical events and strategic priorities. While this specific contract was for $114.4 million, overall defense spending on training systems has continued, driven by the need for realistic, cost-effective, and adaptable training solutions. Analyzing trends would require examining broader defense spending data and specific program solicitations over the past two decades.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (APPLIES TO AWARDS WHERE TWO OR MORE OF THE ABOVE APPLY) (2)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: BAE Systems PLC

Address: 1205 COLEMAN AVENUE, SANTA CLARA, CA, 95052

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline