Department of the Army awards $43.3M contract for small arms and ordnance to General Dynamics-OTS, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $43,291,393 ($43.3M)

Contractor: General Dynamics-Ots, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-09-02

End Date: 2007-05-30

Contract Duration: 1,000 days

Daily Burn Rate: $43.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200412!003080!2100!W52H09!TACOM ROCK ISLAND !W52H0904C0218 !A!N! !N! ! !20040902!20071231!003567125!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !128 LAKESIDE AVENUE !BURLINGTON !VT!05401!64675!031!23!SACO !YORK !MAINE !+000011205324!N!N!000000000000!1005!GUNS, THROUGH 30 MM !A5 !WEAPONS !000 !* !332994!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!N!J!2!002!N!1G!A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !B!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: SACO, YORK County, MAINE, 04072

State: Maine Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $43.3 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS-OTS, INC. for work described as: 200412!003080!2100!W52H09!TACOM ROCK ISLAND !W52H0904C0218 !A!N! !N! ! !20040902!20071231!003567125!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !128 LAKESIDE AVENUE !BURLINGTON !VT!05401!64675!031!23!SACO !YORK… Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a competitive process with specific source exclusions. 2. The contract value of $43.3 million represents a significant investment in ordnance and small arms manufacturing. 3. Performance period spans from September 2004 to May 2007, with a duration of approximately 1000 days. 4. The contract is for Guns, Through 30 MM, falling under the broader category of Weapons. 5. General Dynamics-OTS, Inc. is the primary contractor, located in Vermont, with a facility in Maine. 6. This award signifies continued reliance on established defense contractors for critical weapon systems.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $43.3 million for small arms and ordnance appears reasonable given the nature of defense procurement. Benchmarking against similar contracts for weapon systems would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government. However, without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar items, a definitive assessment of pricing efficiency is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded from consideration. The presence of two bidders suggests a degree of competition, but the exclusion of other potential sources may have limited the overall competitive landscape and potentially impacted price discovery. Further details on the reasons for source exclusion would be necessary for a complete understanding of the competition dynamics.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of certain sources, even with two bidders, may have resulted in a less competitive environment than a truly full and open competition, potentially leading to higher prices for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and potentially other branches of the Department of Defense requiring small arms and ordnance. The contract delivers essential components and systems for military operations, contributing to national defense capabilities. The geographic impact includes operations in Vermont and Maine, supporting regional economies and employment. Workforce implications include skilled manufacturing jobs in the defense sector, particularly in machining, assembly, and quality control.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusions impacting price.
Reliance on a single primary contractor for critical weapon components.
Lack of detailed cost data makes precise value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract structure shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Award to an established defense contractor with presumed expertise.
Contract supports critical national defense needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense Industrial Base sector, specifically focusing on the manufacturing of small arms and ordnance. The market for such specialized defense equipment is characterized by high barriers to entry, stringent quality requirements, and significant government oversight. Spending in this area is driven by military readiness requirements and technological advancements in weaponry. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other contracts for similar weapon systems or ammunition procurement by various defense agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal, with potential indirect benefits if General Dynamics-OTS, Inc. utilizes small business suppliers in its broader supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed cost breakdowns are often proprietary. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Procurement
Ordnance and Small Arms Manufacturing
Weapons Systems Procurement
Defense Industrial Base Contracts

Risk Flags

Competition Limited by Source Exclusion
Potential for Supply Chain Vulnerability
Reliance on Established Contractor

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $43.3 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS-OTS, INC.. 200412!003080!2100!W52H09!TACOM ROCK ISLAND !W52H0904C0218 !A!N! !N! ! !20040902!20071231!003567125!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !128 LAKESIDE AVENUE !BURLINGTON !VT!05401!64675!031!23!SACO !YORK !MAINE !+000011205324!N!N!000000000000!1005!GUNS, THROUGH 30 MM !A5 !WEAPONS !000 !* !332994!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS-OTS, 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 $43.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-09-02. End: 2007-05-30.

What is the track record of General Dynamics-OTS, Inc. in fulfilling defense contracts, particularly for small arms and ordnance?

General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (OTS), a subsidiary of General Dynamics, has a long-standing history of producing a wide range of defense products, including small arms, ammunition, and ordnance systems. They are known for their expertise in areas such as cannon systems, mortar systems, and related components. Their track record typically involves fulfilling large, complex contracts for the U.S. military and allied nations. While specific performance metrics for individual contracts are often not publicly disclosed in detail, their continued success in securing significant awards suggests a generally positive performance history. However, like any large defense contractor, they may have faced scrutiny or performance issues on specific programs over their extensive operational history. A deeper dive into contract performance reports and any associated corrective actions would be needed for a comprehensive assessment.

How does the awarded price of $43.3 million compare to similar contracts for small arms and ordnance?

Comparing the $43.3 million award for 'Guns, Through 30 MM' requires access to a database of similar contracts with detailed specifications and quantities. Without such a comparative dataset, it's difficult to definitively state whether this price is high or low. Factors influencing price include the specific type and caliber of guns, the quantity ordered, technological sophistication, required delivery schedules, and the level of competition. Given that this is a firm fixed-price contract awarded after some form of competition, the price reflects the market conditions and the contractor's assessment of costs and profit. However, the exclusion of sources in the competition might have influenced the final price. A thorough benchmark analysis would involve identifying contracts for comparable weapon systems awarded around the same period to different entities or under different competition structures.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract for the Department of the Army?

The primary risks for the Department of the Army in this contract include potential performance issues from the contractor, such as delays in delivery or failure to meet quality specifications. Given the nature of defense procurement, there's also a risk of obsolescence if the technology rapidly advances beyond what is contracted. Another risk stems from the competition structure: 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' implies that not all potential suppliers were considered, which could lead to suboptimal pricing or limited innovation compared to a truly open competition. Furthermore, reliance on a single contractor for critical components can create supply chain vulnerabilities. Finally, cost overruns are mitigated by the firm fixed-price nature, but unforeseen technical challenges could still arise, potentially impacting the program's overall cost-effectiveness if not managed properly.

What is the expected program effectiveness and impact of these small arms and ordnance systems?

The expected program effectiveness hinges on the reliability, performance, and suitability of the small arms and ordnance systems procured. These systems are critical for equipping soldiers and supporting military operations, directly impacting combat effectiveness, force protection, and mission success. The impact is measured by the ability of these weapons to meet operational requirements in various environments and scenarios. Effective systems enhance soldier lethality and survivability, contributing to the overall strategic objectives of the Department of the Army. The long-term impact also includes maintaining readiness of the armed forces and deterring potential adversaries. The success of the program is contingent on the contractor delivering systems that meet stringent military specifications and perform as intended throughout their lifecycle.

How has federal spending on small arms and ordnance manufacturing evolved over time, and where does this contract fit in?

Federal spending on small arms and ordnance manufacturing has historically been a significant component of the defense budget, fluctuating based on geopolitical events, military modernization efforts, and operational tempo. Following major conflicts, spending often increases to replenish inventories and upgrade equipment. In recent decades, there has been a trend towards consolidating defense manufacturing and focusing on advanced technologies. This $43.3 million contract, awarded in 2004, falls within a period of active military engagements (e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan), suggesting a need for continued procurement and sustainment of existing weapon systems. It represents a specific investment within the broader category of 'Weapons' and 'Guns, Through 30 MM,' contributing to the overall defense industrial base's capacity to produce essential materiel. Its size is moderate within the context of large defense contracts, indicating a focused procurement rather than a massive overhaul.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing › Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: WEAPONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 128 LAKESIDE AVENUE, BURLINGTON, VT, 00

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline