DoD awards EnvistaCom $325M for global field support, raising value-for-money questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $324,823,342 ($324.8M)

Contractor: Envistacom, L.L.C

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-09-24

End Date: 2025-06-27

Contract Duration: 1,737 days

Daily Burn Rate: $187.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: AWARD OF RTEP 9108 GTACS II GLOBAL FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES.

Place of Performance

Location: VIENNA, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22182

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $324.8 million to ENVISTACOM, L.L.C for work described as: AWARD OF RTEP 9108 GTACS II GLOBAL FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES. Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize higher spending. 2. Limited public data on performance metrics makes value assessment challenging. 3. The significant duration and global scope indicate substantial program risk. 4. This award represents a notable portion of the Army's spending in this niche. 5. The contractor's track record requires deeper scrutiny for performance consistency. 6. Competition was robust, but pricing details are not fully transparent.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is difficult without detailed performance data and a clear understanding of the services rendered. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for complex services, can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. Compared to similar global field support contracts, the per-unit cost is not readily available, making direct price comparisons challenging. The total award value of $325 million over nearly five years suggests a significant investment, necessitating rigorous oversight to ensure cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors were likely solicited. With seven bidders, the competition level appears healthy, which typically fosters better pricing and service offerings. However, the specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria are not publicly disclosed, making it hard to definitively assess if the lowest price technically acceptable or best value approach was used. The presence of multiple bidders suggests a competitive market for these services.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition is a positive signal for taxpayers, as it generally leads to more competitive pricing and encourages contractors to offer better value. It reduces the risk of overpayment due to a lack of alternatives.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense (Army) is the primary beneficiary, receiving critical field support services. Services likely include maintenance, logistics, and technical support for communication equipment globally. The geographic impact is global, supporting military operations across various theaters. Workforce implications may include direct hires by EnvistaCom and potential subcontracting opportunities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure could lead to cost escalation.
Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders value assessment.
Global scope introduces logistical and operational complexities.
Contract duration extends over multiple fiscal years, increasing long-term financial commitment.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition with seven bidders.
Contract includes provisions for fixed fees, offering some cost predictability.
Located in Virginia, potentially leveraging established defense contractor ecosystem.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader telecommunications and defense support services sector. The market for global field support, particularly for military applications, is specialized and often dominated by a few key players. The NAICS code 334220 (Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing) suggests a focus on the equipment aspect, but the contract's nature points towards services related to that equipment. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to ascertain without more specific service details, but multi-year, global support contracts for defense agencies typically represent significant investments.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside objective for this specific award. There is no explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals. This suggests that the prime contract was awarded to a large business, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless EnvistaCom actively engages small businesses as subcontractors. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to fully assess the impact.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is limited by the public availability of detailed performance data and pricing breakdowns. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Global Logistics Support Services
Defense Communications Equipment Maintenance
Army Field Service Contracts
Wireless Communications Infrastructure Support
Contingency Operations Support

Risk Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing structure
Lack of detailed public performance metrics
Global operational complexity
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $324.8 million to ENVISTACOM, L.L.C. AWARD OF RTEP 9108 GTACS II GLOBAL FIELD SUPPORT SERVICES.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ENVISTACOM, L.L.C.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $324.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-09-24. End: 2025-06-27.

What is EnvistaCom's past performance record with the Department of Defense, particularly on similar global support contracts?

Assessing EnvistaCom's past performance is crucial for understanding their capability to execute this $325 million global field support contract. While the award itself indicates they met certain criteria, detailed public records on their performance on prior DoD contracts, especially those involving similar scope, complexity, and geographic reach, are not readily available. A thorough review would involve examining past performance evaluations, any documented issues or commendations, and their history with cost control and schedule adherence on previous engagements. Without this granular data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their reliability and predict future performance outcomes for this specific contract.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) compare to industry benchmarks for similar global field support services, and what are the inherent risks?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used for complex services where the scope is not precisely defined upfront, offering flexibility. However, it carries inherent risks for the government, primarily the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is incentivized to incur costs to complete the work, though their profit (the fixed fee) remains constant. Benchmarking CPFF contracts is challenging as 'allowable costs' can vary, and profit margins (fees) are often subject to negotiation and specific contract types. Industry benchmarks suggest fees typically range from 7-15% of the estimated cost, but without knowing the estimated cost base and specific service details here, a direct comparison is difficult. Rigorous oversight of allowable costs is paramount to mitigate financial risks.

What specific performance metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are included in the contract to measure success and ensure value for money?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or performance metrics associated with this RTEP 9108 GTACS II contract. Typically, for global field support services, KPIs might include response times for technical support, equipment uptime percentages, successful completion rates for maintenance tasks, logistical delivery timelines, and adherence to safety protocols. The absence of publicly available performance metrics makes it challenging to independently assess whether EnvistaCom is delivering the expected value and meeting the Department of the Army's requirements effectively. Robust KPIs are essential for ensuring accountability and justifying the $325 million investment.

What is the historical spending trend for similar global field support services by the Department of the Army, and how does this award compare?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar global field support services by the Department of the Army is essential for context. While specific data for 'GTACS II Global Field Support Services' isn't detailed here, the Army consistently invests billions annually in logistics, maintenance, and technical support contracts to maintain global operational readiness. Awards of this magnitude ($325 million over nearly five years) are significant but not uncommon for large-scale, long-duration support requirements. Comparing this award requires identifying comparable contracts based on service type (e.g., communications equipment support, field maintenance, logistics), geographic scope (global), and contract duration. Understanding past spending patterns helps determine if this award represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in such services.

What are the potential risks associated with the global nature of this contract, including logistical challenges, geopolitical factors, and varying operational environments?

The global scope of this contract introduces significant risks. Logistical challenges are paramount, involving the transportation of personnel, equipment, and supplies across potentially vast distances and diverse terrains. Geopolitical factors, such as political instability, changing international relations, or security threats in operating regions, can disrupt service delivery and increase costs or personnel risks. Varying operational environments, from austere forward operating bases to established installations, require adaptable support strategies and robust contingency planning. Furthermore, navigating different legal, regulatory, and cultural landscapes in multiple countries adds complexity. Effective risk mitigation requires comprehensive planning, strong communication channels, and agile management by both the contractor and the contracting agency.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2150 BOGGS ROAD, DULUTH, GA, 30096

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Minority Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $399,685,969

Exercised Options: $381,227,955

Current Obligation: $324,823,342

Actual Outlays: $29,877,139

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T20D0008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline