DoD's $30M pilot for armored brigade network systems awarded to General Dynamics without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,166,687 ($30.2M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-07-02

End Date: 2022-02-26

Contract Duration: 604 days

Daily Burn Rate: $49.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TO PROCURE ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES TO EXECUTE A PILOT FOR AN ARMORED BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM (ABCT)IN SUPPORT OF PRODUCT MANAGER MISSION NETWORK (PDM MN) TACTICAL NETWORK-TRANSPORT ON THE MOVE (TNT OTM) SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT.

Place of Performance

Location: TAUNTON, BRISTOL County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02780

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $30.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: TO PROCURE ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES TO EXECUTE A PILOT FOR AN ARMORED BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM (ABCT)IN SUPPORT OF PRODUCT MANAGER MISSION NETWORK (PDM MN) TACTICAL NETWORK-TRANSPORT ON THE MOVE (TNT OTM) SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT. Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. The pilot aims to enhance tactical network capabilities for armored units, a critical area for modernization. 3. Performance period of approximately two years suggests a focused, short-term evaluation of the technology. 4. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) can incentivize cost overruns if not closely managed. 5. Focus on 'transport on the move' systems indicates a need for robust, mobile communication solutions. 6. The specific product manager (PDM MN) suggests a targeted approach to a particular set of systems.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $30.17 million for engineering and technical support services for a pilot program is difficult to benchmark without more detailed cost breakdowns. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while common for R&D and complex services, carries inherent risks of cost escalation if not rigorously managed. Without competitive bidding, it's challenging to assess if the pricing reflects fair market value. The absence of a clear per-unit cost metric makes direct value-for-money assessment difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc., was considered. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple vendors submitting proposals. While sole-source awards can be justified for specialized capabilities or urgent needs, they limit the government's ability to explore alternative solutions and negotiate the best possible price.

Taxpayer Impact: Awarding contracts without competition generally leads to higher costs for taxpayers as the potential for price reduction through bidding is eliminated. This can result in less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army's Armored Brigade Combat Teams (ABCTs), who will receive enhanced tactical network capabilities. The services delivered include engineering and technical support for pilot systems, focusing on network transport. The geographic impact is likely within military operational areas or testing facilities, primarily supporting Army units. Workforce implications may involve specialized engineers and technicians from General Dynamics, potentially requiring training for Army personnel on new systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competition and potentially increases costs.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed effectively.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
Pilot program nature means long-term effectiveness and scalability are yet to be proven.

Positive Signals

Addresses a critical need for modernized tactical network capabilities in ABCTs.
Focuses on 'transport on the move' systems, crucial for mobile combat operations.
Awarded to a known entity (General Dynamics) with existing expertise in defense systems.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector, particularly within tactical communications and network modernization, is a significant area of government spending. This contract fits within the broader landscape of equipping military units with advanced, resilient, and mobile communication systems. The market for such technologies is competitive, with several large defense contractors offering solutions. Benchmarking spending in this specific niche is challenging due to the specialized nature of pilot programs and unique system requirements.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not competed and did not include small business set-asides. General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. is a large business. There is no indication of subcontracting plans for small businesses within the provided data. This sole-source award to a large prime contractor means limited direct opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific project.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates close monitoring of costs and performance to ensure value. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award.

Related Government Programs

Army Tactical Network modernization programs
Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) systems
Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) equipment modernization
Product Manager Mission Network (PDM MN) portfolio

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type
Lack of competitive bidding

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $30.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. TO PROCURE ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES TO EXECUTE A PILOT FOR AN ARMORED BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM (ABCT)IN SUPPORT OF PRODUCT MANAGER MISSION NETWORK (PDM MN) TACTICAL NETWORK-TRANSPORT ON THE MOVE (TNT OTM) SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT.

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 $30.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-07-02. End: 2022-02-26.

What is the specific justification provided by the Department of the Army for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. While the specific justification is not detailed in the abbreviated data, sole-source awards are typically justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations (FAR). These often include situations where only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, such as when a unique capability is required, or for reasons of urgency, standardization, or follow-on work to a previous sole-source award. For this specific contract, the justification would likely relate to the unique nature of the pilot program for the PDM MN's tactical network-transport systems and General Dynamics' specific expertise or existing role with these systems. A full justification document would typically be available through official government contracting channels.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type compare to other contract types for R&D or pilot programs in the defense sector?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are common for research and development (R&D) and pilot programs where the scope of work is not fully defined or is expected to evolve. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This contrasts with fixed-price contracts, where the price is set upfront, and cost-reimbursement contracts (like Cost Plus Incentive Fee or Cost Plus Award Fee) which may include performance incentives. For pilot programs, CPFF allows flexibility to adapt to unforeseen technical challenges or requirements changes. However, it places a significant burden on the government to closely monitor costs to prevent overruns, as the contractor has less financial incentive to control expenses compared to fixed-price arrangements. Other contract types like Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) are generally used when the scope is well-defined and stable, while incentive-fee contracts aim to align contractor and government interests through performance metrics.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for a technology pilot program like this?

Sole-source awards for technology pilot programs carry several risks. Firstly, the absence of competition means the government may not achieve the best possible price, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers. Secondly, it limits the exploration of alternative technologies or approaches that other vendors might offer, potentially resulting in a suboptimal solution. Thirdly, without competitive proposals, it can be harder to objectively assess the contractor's technical approach and capabilities. Fourthly, it can create a perception of favoritism or lack of transparency. Finally, for pilot programs specifically, a sole-source award might lock the government into a particular vendor's ecosystem early on, potentially hindering future flexibility and broader adoption if the pilot is successful.

What is the typical duration and funding profile for similar pilot programs within the Department of the Army for tactical network systems?

The duration and funding for pilot programs within the Department of the Army for tactical network systems can vary significantly based on the complexity of the technology, the objectives of the pilot, and the specific program of record it supports. This particular contract has a duration of 604 days (approximately 20 months) and a total value of $30.17 million. Similar pilot programs often range from several months to two years. Funding can also vary widely, from a few million dollars for smaller technology demonstrations to tens of millions for more comprehensive system evaluations. Factors influencing funding include the number of systems being tested, the operational environments, the level of integration required, and the extent of engineering and technical support needed. The $30 million figure for this pilot suggests a substantial evaluation of the 'tactical network-transport on the move' systems.

What is General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.'s track record with the Department of the Army and in providing tactical network solutions?

General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. (GDMS) has a long-standing and extensive track record of providing a wide range of technology solutions and services to the Department of the Army and other military branches. They are a major defense contractor known for their expertise in areas such as command and control systems, secure communications, cyber security, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms. GDMS has been involved in numerous programs related to tactical networks, including vehicular communication systems, soldier radios, and network infrastructure. Their involvement with Product Manager Mission Network (PDM MN) systems, as indicated by this contract, suggests a continued role in supporting the Army's efforts to modernize its battlefield communications. Given their established presence and portfolio, GDMS is generally considered a capable provider of such complex defense technologies.

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: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

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: $35,341,644

Exercised Options: $30,166,687

Current Obligation: $30,166,687

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