DoD's $31.1M contract for multi-lingual vehicular microDAGRs awarded to Rockwell Collins, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,107,931 ($31.1M)

Contractor: Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-08-07

End Date: 2017-02-28

Contract Duration: 1,301 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: FMS CASE SI-B WAF, COOLEST 6156 FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT TO TO DESIGN, DEVELOP, INTEGRATE, TEST, AND DELIVER MULTI-LINGUAL VEHICULAR MICRODAGRS (MICRODAGR-V), MICRODAGR-V MOUNTS, MULTI-LINGUAL HAND HELD MICRODAGRS (MICRODAGR-HH), MISSION PLANNING CAPABILITY, INSTALLATION KITS AND ACCESSORIES, AND FIELD SERVICE AND TRAINING SUPPORT, AS REQUIRED BY THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA (KSA) FOR THE SAUDI ARABIA LIGHT ARMORED VEHICLE BRIGADES, AND PROVIDE SUBSEQUENT LOGISTICAL SUPPORT.

Place of Performance

Location: CEDAR RAPIDS, LINN County, IOWA, 52498

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.1 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. for work described as: FMS CASE SI-B WAF, COOLEST 6156 FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT TO TO DESIGN, DEVELOP, INTEGRATE, TEST, AND DELIVER MULTI-LINGUAL VEHICULAR MICRODAGRS (MICRODAGR-V), MICRODAGR-V MOUNTS, MULTI-LINGUAL HAND HELD MICRODAGRS (MICRODAGR-HH), MISSION PLANNING CAPABILITY, INSTALLATION KITS A… Key points: 1. The contract's firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs for the design, development, integration, testing, and delivery of advanced microDAGR systems. 2. Awarded as 'Not Competed,' this sole-source approach may limit price discovery and potentially increase costs compared to a competitive procurement. 3. The duration of the contract (1301 days) suggests a complex, multi-year effort involving significant development and integration work. 4. The contract supports the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's light armored vehicle brigades, indicating a foreign military sales component. 5. The scope includes not only hardware but also mission planning, installation, accessories, and field service/training, suggesting a comprehensive solution. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334511 points to the manufacturing of search, detection, navigation, guidance, and aeronautical/nautical systems.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $31.1 million for the development and delivery of specialized microDAGR systems appears reasonable given the scope, which includes design, integration, testing, and ongoing support. However, without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market alternatives or assess if the government secured the best possible value. The firm-fixed-price nature provides cost certainty, but the absence of competition raises questions about potential overpricing.

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. This approach is typically used when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. The lack of competition means that potential cost savings that could arise from multiple bidders vying for the contract were not realized. This can lead to higher prices for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure. The government did not benefit from the price reductions that typically occur when multiple companies compete for a contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's light armored vehicle brigades, receiving advanced navigation and targeting systems. The services delivered include the design, development, integration, testing, and delivery of multi-lingual vehicular and handheld microDAGRs, along with mission planning capabilities. The geographic impact is focused on Saudi Arabia, supporting its military modernization efforts. Workforce implications may include specialized engineering, manufacturing, and technical support roles within Rockwell Collins, Inc. and its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the procurement process due to non-competitive award.
Potential for cost overruns if not closely managed, despite firm-fixed-price structure.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical defense technology.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Comprehensive scope includes development, delivery, and ongoing support, ensuring a complete solution.
Award to an established contractor (Rockwell Collins) suggests technical capability and experience.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the defense electronics and systems manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on navigation and guidance systems. The market for such specialized military technology is often characterized by high barriers to entry due to research and development costs, intellectual property, and stringent security requirements. Spending in this area is driven by defense modernization efforts and the need for advanced situational awareness and targeting capabilities for military operations.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a primary consideration, as the award was made directly to Rockwell Collins, Inc. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting plans. This suggests that the primary focus was on the prime contractor's capabilities, and the impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract is likely minimal unless Rockwell Collins independently engages small businesses for subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor compliance with contract terms and conditions. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which holds the contractor responsible for delivering the specified goods and services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, but contract modifications and performance reports would be subject to internal government review.

Related Government Programs

Tactical Data Links
Navigation Systems
Military Communication Systems
Foreign Military Sales
Defense Electronics Manufacturing

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competitive bidding
Potential for cost overruns
Foreign military sales component

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.1 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.. FMS CASE SI-B WAF, COOLEST 6156 FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT TO TO DESIGN, DEVELOP, INTEGRATE, TEST, AND DELIVER MULTI-LINGUAL VEHICULAR MICRODAGRS (MICRODAGR-V), MICRODAGR-V MOUNTS, MULTI-LINGUAL HAND HELD MICRODAGRS (MICRODAGR-HH), MISSION PLANNING CAPABILITY, INSTALLATION KITS AND ACCESSORIES, AND FIELD SERVICE AND TRAINING SUPPORT, AS REQUIRED BY THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA (KSA) FOR THE SAUDI ARABIA LIGHT ARMORED VEHICLE BRIGADES, AND PROVIDE SUBSEQUENT LOGISTICAL SUPPORT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROCKWELL COLLINS, 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 $31.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-08-07. End: 2017-02-28.

What is the track record of Rockwell Collins, Inc. in delivering similar defense navigation and targeting systems?

Rockwell Collins, Inc. (now part of Collins Aerospace, a Raytheon Technologies company) has a long-standing reputation for providing advanced avionics, communication, and navigation systems for both military and commercial applications. Their experience includes developing sophisticated systems for aircraft, vehicles, and ground personnel. For military clients, they have a history of delivering secure communication devices, integrated mission systems, and advanced displays. Their involvement in programs like this microDAGR contract is consistent with their core competencies in electronic systems, software integration, and defense manufacturing. The company's track record suggests a strong technical capability to handle complex development and integration projects, though specific performance details on past foreign military sales contracts would require deeper investigation.

How does the $31.1 million contract value compare to similar procurements for advanced navigation systems?

Benchmarking the $31.1 million value for this specific microDAGR system is challenging without direct comparisons of identical systems procured competitively. However, the cost reflects the complexity of developing, integrating, and delivering multi-lingual vehicular and handheld devices, along with mission planning software and field support. Contracts for advanced military navigation and targeting systems can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the quantity, technological sophistication, and scope of services. Given that this was a sole-source award, it's difficult to ascertain if the price represents optimal value. A competitive procurement might have yielded a lower price point or more favorable terms, but the specialized nature of the technology and the specific requirements of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia likely influenced the final negotiated price.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award for critical defense technology like microDAGRs?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award for critical defense technology is the potential for inflated pricing due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without multiple bidders, the government may not achieve the best possible value for its investment. Another significant risk is reduced innovation, as the absence of competition can lessen the incentive for the sole contractor to explore more cost-effective or technologically superior solutions. Furthermore, sole-source contracts can create dependency on a single supplier, which can be problematic if the contractor faces financial difficulties, production issues, or decides to exit the market. This dependency also limits the government's flexibility in seeking alternative solutions or upgrades in the future.

How effective are firm-fixed-price contracts in managing costs for complex defense development projects?

Firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally considered effective for managing costs in defense development projects, especially when the scope of work is well-defined and the risks are understood. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes most of the cost and schedule risk, agreeing to a set price for delivering the specified goods or services. This provides cost certainty for the government. However, for highly complex or developmental projects where requirements may evolve or unforeseen technical challenges arise, FFP contracts can sometimes lead to contractors cutting corners on quality or scope to protect their profit margin, or conversely, lead to costly change orders if the scope needs significant revision. In this case, the FFP structure for the microDAGR system aims to cap the government's expenditure.

What are the historical spending patterns for navigation and guidance systems within the Department of Defense?

The Department of Defense consistently allocates significant funding towards navigation and guidance systems as they are critical for modern military operations across all branches. Historical spending patterns show a continuous investment in technologies that enhance situational awareness, precision targeting, and troop safety. This includes spending on GPS/GNSS receivers, inertial navigation systems, advanced sensor integration, and related software. Budgets for these systems fluctuate based on strategic priorities, technological advancements, and specific platform modernization programs. While precise figures for 'microDAGRs' specifically are not publicly itemized, the overall category of 'Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing' (NAICS 334511) represents a substantial segment of defense manufacturing procurement, often in the billions of dollars annually.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W15P7T13RD001

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp (UEI: 001344142)

Address: 400 COLLINS RD NE, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA, 52498

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $35,361,757

Exercised Options: $31,107,931

Current Obligation: $31,107,931

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline