DoD's $60.9M UCA for LW Systems, Support, and Spares awarded to General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $60,891,802 ($60.9M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-05

End Date: 2009-10-30

Contract Duration: 420 days

Daily Burn Rate: $145.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: UCA FOR LW SYSTEMS, SUPPORT, AND SPARES

Place of Performance

Location: SCOTTSDALE, MARICOPA County, ARIZONA, 85257

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $60.9 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: UCA FOR LW SYSTEMS, SUPPORT, AND SPARES Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. Firm Fixed Price contract type suggests cost certainty for the government. 3. Contract duration of 420 days indicates a short-term need for these systems. 4. The contract value of $60.9M falls within a moderate spending range for defense systems. 5. Awarded to a large, established defense contractor with significant experience. 6. No small business set-aside or subcontracting goals were specified. 7. Geographic location of contractor in Arizona may have local economic implications.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $60.9 million for Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCA) systems, support, and spares is a significant investment. Without comparable sole-source contracts for similar systems, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the award aims to provide cost predictability. The relatively short duration of 420 days suggests a specific, potentially urgent, need rather than a long-term sustainment program, which could influence the per-unit cost.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities, technology, or when urgent needs preclude a competitive process. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from potential price reductions or innovative solutions that might arise from a bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher prices for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down costs. This limits the government's ability to ensure it is receiving the best possible value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense, specifically units requiring LW systems for their operations. The contract delivers essential support and spare parts for existing or new LW systems. The geographic impact is primarily within the operational theater where these LW systems are deployed. Workforce implications may include sustainment and maintenance personnel for the LW systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may result in a higher price than a competed contract.
Sole-source awards can reduce transparency and accountability in the procurement process.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical systems can create vendor lock-in.
Limited visibility into the contractor's cost structure due to sole-source nature.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to an established contractor suggests a degree of confidence in their capabilities.
Focus on support and spares ensures operational readiness of existing systems.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector, particularly in the area of unmanned systems and aerospace manufacturing, is characterized by high technological complexity and significant government investment. This contract for LW systems, support, and spares fits within the broader category of defense procurement, which often involves specialized components and services. The market for such systems is dominated by a few large, experienced defense contractors. Benchmarking this contract's value is difficult without specific details on the LW systems themselves, but it represents a moderate investment within the overall defense budget for advanced platforms.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. The award to a large prime contractor like General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. suggests that the bulk of the work will be performed by the prime or its large subcontractors. This limits opportunities for small businesses to participate directly in this specific procurement, potentially impacting the small business defense ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contract compliance and performance. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for the contractor to deliver within the agreed-upon price. However, the sole-source award limits the transparency typically afforded by a competitive bidding process, making it harder to assess the full extent of oversight effectiveness without further details on specific performance metrics and reporting.

Related Government Programs

Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCA)
Defense Logistics and Support Services
Aerospace Manufacturing
Missile and Space Systems Manufacturing

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for higher costs
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $60.9 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. UCA FOR LW SYSTEMS, SUPPORT, AND SPARES

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 $60.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-05. End: 2009-10-30.

What is the specific type of LW system this contract pertains to, and what are its primary operational capabilities?

The provided data does not specify the exact type of 'LW Systems.' 'LW' could potentially refer to 'Lightweight,' 'Long-Wing,' or a specific program designation. Without this clarification, it is difficult to ascertain the precise operational capabilities. However, given the context of 'Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCA)' and the contractor's specialization, it is likely related to advanced drone technology. These systems could range from reconnaissance and surveillance platforms to armed strike capabilities. The 'support and spares' component indicates a need for maintenance, repair, and replacement parts to ensure the operational readiness and longevity of these complex aerial vehicles.

How does the $60.9 million contract value compare to similar sole-source procurements for UCA systems or support?

Direct comparison of this $60.9 million contract value to similar sole-source procurements for UCA systems and support is challenging without access to a broader database of defense contracts with detailed specifications. Sole-source awards are inherently difficult to benchmark because the pricing is not validated through competition. However, for context, major UCA programs and their sustainment contracts can range from tens of millions to billions of dollars. The value of this contract suggests it might be for a specific variant, a limited number of systems, or focused on a particular phase of support and spares rather than a full lifecycle sustainment program for a large fleet. The firm fixed-price nature aims to cap the government's financial exposure.

What specific justifications were provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' implying a sole-source justification was made. Common justifications for sole-source awards in defense procurement include: unique capabilities or technology possessed by only one source, urgent and compelling needs that preclude competitive procedures, or when the government determines that only one responsible source can provide the supplies or services. For UCA systems, this could stem from proprietary technology, specialized integration requirements with existing platforms, or a need for immediate deployment of critical capabilities where a lengthy competition would be detrimental to national security. A formal Justification and Approval (J&A) document would typically detail these specific reasons.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for critical defense systems like LW systems?

Sole-source awards for critical defense systems carry several potential risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can lead to higher costs for taxpayers, as the contractor faces no downward price pressure. Secondly, it can reduce innovation, as there is less incentive for the contractor to develop more cost-effective or technologically advanced solutions. Thirdly, it can create vendor lock-in, making it difficult and expensive to switch to alternative suppliers in the future. Finally, it can diminish transparency and oversight, as the government has less leverage to scrutinize pricing and performance compared to a competitive environment. This reliance on a single source also introduces supply chain risks if that contractor faces production issues or financial instability.

What is General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.'s track record with similar defense contracts, particularly in UCA or related technologies?

General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. (GDMS) is a major defense contractor with a substantial track record in developing and supporting complex defense systems, including command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) solutions, as well as various unmanned and autonomous systems. While the specific 'LW Systems' are not detailed, GDMS has been involved in programs related to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and other advanced platforms. Their extensive experience in systems integration, software development, and hardware manufacturing positions them as a capable provider for such contracts. However, the performance and cost-effectiveness of their past contracts would require a deeper analysis of specific program data and reviews.

What is the expected impact of this contract on the operational readiness and capabilities of the specific DoD units that will utilize these LW systems?

This contract is expected to significantly enhance the operational readiness and capabilities of the specific Department of Defense units that rely on these LW systems. By providing essential support and spare parts, the contract ensures that the systems can be maintained, repaired, and kept in operational status. This directly translates to increased availability of these advanced platforms for missions, whether they involve intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), or combat operations. The availability of timely support and spares reduces downtime, minimizes mission delays, and ultimately allows the warfighter to effectively employ these critical assets when and where needed, thereby bolstering overall force projection and effectiveness.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing › All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: WEAPONS

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: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

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: $60,891,802

Exercised Options: $60,891,802

Current Obligation: $60,891,802

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline