DoD awards $56.5M delivery order for configuration items to General Dynamics, citing no competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $56,505,727 ($56.5M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-09-27

End Date: 2021-12-31

Contract Duration: 826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $68.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: THIS ORDER PROCURES CONFIGURATION ITEMS (CIS) OFF THE BASIC CONTRACT W15P7T-10-D-C007. THE ITEMS ARE SUBJECT TO PROGRESS PAYMENT.

Place of Performance

Location: TAUNTON, BRISTOL County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02780

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $56.5 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: THIS ORDER PROCURES CONFIGURATION ITEMS (CIS) OFF THE BASIC CONTRACT W15P7T-10-D-C007. THE ITEMS ARE SUBJECT TO PROGRESS PAYMENT. Key points: 1. Contract awarded as a delivery order against an existing basic contract. 2. Significant value suggests critical or high-volume procurement of specialized equipment. 3. Sole-source award raises questions about potential price overruns and lack of market pressure. 4. Contract duration of over two years indicates a substantial, ongoing need. 5. Firm fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but competition is key to realizing savings. 6. Procurement falls under the Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing industry code.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award value of $56.5 million for configuration items is substantial. Without comparable contract data or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive cost control measure, but the lack of competition means the government cannot be certain it secured the best possible price. Benchmarking against similar procurements for specialized communication equipment would be necessary for a more precise valuation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a sole-source delivery order against an existing basic contract (W15P7T-10-D-C007). The data explicitly states 'NOT COMPETED'. This indicates that the Department of the Army did not solicit bids from multiple vendors for this specific order. The reasons for this sole-source determination are not provided, but it limits the potential for competitive pricing and innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not be getting the most competitive price, as there was no opportunity for multiple vendors to bid and drive down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Army, is the primary beneficiary, receiving critical configuration items. The services delivered involve the provision of specialized equipment, likely for communication or command and control systems. The geographic impact is likely national, supporting military operations across various locations. Workforce implications are tied to the manufacturing and supply chain of General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition for a significant award value raises concerns about price reasonableness.
Limited transparency into the justification for the sole-source award.
Potential for vendor lock-in if this equipment is highly specialized and integrated.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty once awarded.
Award is against an existing basic contract, suggesting a pre-established relationship and potentially streamlined process.
Contract duration of over two years implies a consistent need for these items.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology and Telecommunications sector, specifically related to manufacturing telephone apparatus and related configuration items. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334210, Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, indicates a focus on producing communication equipment. The overall market for such specialized defense-related communication hardware is often characterized by a limited number of highly capable contractors, making sole-source or limited competition awards more common, though not necessarily ideal from a cost perspective.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a stated factor in this award (ss: false, sb: false). As a sole-source award, there is no explicit small business set-aside. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on General Dynamics' internal policies and the nature of the configuration items being procured, but are not guaranteed by the contract terms provided.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and financial management oversight mechanisms. As a delivery order against a basic contract, the initial contract likely had established oversight. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of detailed public justification. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Procurement
Army Communications Equipment
General Dynamics Contracts
Sole Source Procurements
Configuration Item Management

Risk Flags

Sole Source Award
Lack of Competition
Significant Contract Value

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $56.5 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. THIS ORDER PROCURES CONFIGURATION ITEMS (CIS) OFF THE BASIC CONTRACT W15P7T-10-D-C007. THE ITEMS ARE SUBJECT TO PROGRESS PAYMENT.

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 Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $56.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-09-27. End: 2021-12-31.

What is the specific nature of the 'configuration items' being procured under this order, and why were they deemed necessary?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the 'configuration items' (CIS). However, given the contractor (General Dynamics Mission Systems) and the NAICS code (334210 - Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing), these items are likely specialized hardware components, modules, or subsystems integral to larger communication, command, or control systems used by the Department of the Army. These could range from specialized radios, network interface cards, processing units, or other critical hardware elements that form part of a larger system architecture. The necessity would stem from operational requirements, system upgrades, or replacement of aging equipment to maintain military readiness and technological advantage.

What was the justification for awarding this $56.5 million contract as sole-source, rather than through full and open competition?

The provided data explicitly states 'NOT COMPETED' and classifies the contract type as 'SOLE SOURCE'. However, the specific justification for this sole-source determination is not detailed in the data. Typically, sole-source awards are justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or when there is a compelling urgency. Without further information from the contracting agency (Department of the Army), it is impossible to ascertain the precise rationale behind bypassing full and open competition for this substantial order.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type mitigate risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude?

The Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type is a key mechanism for cost control, especially in sole-source situations. Under an FFP contract, the price is set and not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience. This places the risk of cost overruns on the contractor, incentivizing them to manage their expenses efficiently. While FFP helps define the total cost to the government, it does not inherently guarantee the 'best' price achievable through competition. The government still bears the risk that the FFP amount might be higher than it would have been if multiple bidders had competed, as the contractor sets the price based on their assessment of costs and desired profit without competitive pressure.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar configuration items or contracts with General Dynamics Mission Systems by the Department of the Army?

The provided data pertains to a single delivery order valued at $56.5 million, awarded in September 2019 with an end date in December 2021. It was issued against a basic contract (W15P7T-10-D-C007) that appears to have been awarded much earlier (around 2010). To understand historical spending patterns, one would need to analyze the total value and duration of the underlying basic contract, as well as any other delivery orders issued against it. Additionally, researching other contracts awarded by the Department of the Army to General Dynamics Mission Systems for similar types of communication hardware or configuration items would be necessary to establish a broader spending trend and assess consistency or escalation.

Are there any performance metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with this delivery order that are publicly available?

The provided data snippet focuses on the administrative and financial aspects of the contract award (value, dates, contractor, type). It does not include details regarding specific performance metrics, deliverables, or Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that might have been established for this delivery order. Such details are typically found within the contract's statement of work (SOW) or performance work statement (PWS), which are not included here. While the contract is firm fixed-price, implying performance must meet specified requirements, the exact measures of success are not publicly detailed in this summary.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 400 JOHN QUINCY ADAMS RD, TAUNTON, MA, 02780

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: $56,505,727

Exercised Options: $56,505,727

Current Obligation: $56,505,727

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T10DC007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline