Department of the Army awards $15.8M contract for small arms and ordnance, with a 2006 start date

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,759,918 ($15.8M)

Contractor: General Dynamics-Ots, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-07-26

End Date: 2010-02-26

Contract Duration: 1,311 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.0K/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: 200610!002564!2100!W52H09!TACOM ROCK ISLAND !W52H0906C0155 !A!N! !N! ! !20060726!20071023!003567125!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !128 LAKESIDE AVE !BURLINGTON !VT!05401!10675!007!50!BURLINGTON !CHITTENDEN !VERMONT !+000005583963!N!N!000000000000!1005!GUNS, THROUGH 30 MM !A5 !WEAPONS !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !332994!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!N!J!2!002!N!2A!A!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!D!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 $15.8 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS-OTS, INC. for work described as: 200610!002564!2100!W52H09!TACOM ROCK ISLAND !W52H0906C0155 !A!N! !N! ! !20060726!20071023!003567125!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !128 LAKESIDE AVE !BURLINGTON !VT!05401!10675!007!50!BURLINGTON !CHIT… Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a structured procurement process. 2. The contract value of $15.8 million over its duration suggests a significant investment in ordnance manufacturing. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 4. The duration of over 1300 days implies a long-term need for these specific weapon systems. 5. The award to General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products highlights a key supplier in the defense sector. 6. The product code '332994' points to a specialized manufacturing capability for ordnance.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $15.8 million for small arms and ordnance appears reasonable given the duration of over three years and the specialized nature of the products. Benchmarking against similar contracts for ordnance manufacturing would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an effort to manage cost overruns, which is a positive indicator for government spending.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This specific designation suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources may have been excluded based on predefined criteria. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'full and open' nature implies multiple potential offerors were considered, which generally promotes competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of the procurement, even with exclusions, likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source award. It ensures that the government explored multiple options before selecting a contractor.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army units requiring small arms and ordnance for their operations. The contract delivers essential weaponry and related accessories, contributing to national defense capabilities. The geographic impact is primarily centered around the contractor's facilities in Burlington, Vermont, and potentially extends to the supply chain across the nation. Workforce implications include employment at General Dynamics facilities and within its supply chain, supporting skilled manufacturing jobs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited competition due to specialized nature of ordnance manufacturing.
Risk of cost escalation if contract terms are not strictly managed.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical defense components.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type helps control costs.
Awarded through a competitive process, suggesting value for money.
Long contract duration indicates a sustained need and potential for stable production.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense Industrial Base sector, specifically focusing on the manufacturing of small arms and ordnance. The market for defense manufacturing is characterized by high barriers to entry, specialized technology, and significant government oversight. Spending in this area is driven by national security requirements and geopolitical factors. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for similar weapon systems and ammunition.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false). There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. The focus on a large prime contractor like General Dynamics suggests that opportunities for small businesses might be indirect, through the prime's supply chain, rather than direct set-asides.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army contracting command responsible for ordnance procurement. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified goods. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, although detailed performance reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Small Arms Ammunition
Ordnance Manufacturing
Weapons Systems Procurement
Department of Defense Contracts
Tactical Vehicles and Equipment

Risk Flags

Potential for sole-source dependency in future procurements.
Contract duration exceeds typical shorter-term supply agreements.
Specific competition type ('after exclusion of sources') warrants further investigation into exclusion criteria.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.8 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS-OTS, INC.. 200610!002564!2100!W52H09!TACOM ROCK ISLAND !W52H0906C0155 !A!N! !N! ! !20060726!20071023!003567125!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !128 LAKESIDE AVE !BURLINGTON !VT!05401!10675!007!50!BURLINGTON !CHITTENDEN !VERMONT !+000005583963!N!N!000000000000!1005!GUNS, THROUGH 30 MM !A5 !WEAPONS !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !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 $15.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-07-26. End: 2010-02-26.

What is the historical spending trend for this specific product code (332994) within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending for product code 332994 (Small Arms, Through 30 MM) within the Department of the Army reveals a consistent but fluctuating demand. Prior to this $15.8 million award in 2006, spending on this category often involved multiple, smaller contracts for ammunition, spare parts, and specific weapon components. Post-2010, spending patterns have continued, influenced by operational tempo, modernization efforts, and evolving threat landscapes. While this specific contract represents a significant single award, the Army's overall expenditure on small arms and ordnance is a multi-billion dollar annual commitment, distributed across numerous contractors and product types. Understanding the broader trend requires examining aggregated data over extended periods, considering factors like major conflicts or shifts in military doctrine that influence the need for such materiel.

How does the per-unit cost of items under this contract compare to similar items procured by other branches of the military or allied nations?

A direct per-unit cost comparison for items under this contract is challenging without specific itemization and detailed specifications. However, the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation suggests an effort to achieve competitive pricing. Generally, the Department of Defense aims for cost-effectiveness through bulk purchasing and standardized specifications. Variations in per-unit costs can arise from differences in contract volume, specific technical requirements, production efficiencies, and the competitive landscape for each specific item. Comparing with allied nations involves navigating different procurement systems, currency exchange rates, and potentially different quality or performance standards. The firm fixed-price nature of this contract implies that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns, which should theoretically lead to a more predictable and potentially lower average cost for the government compared to cost-reimbursement contracts, assuming the initial pricing was competitive.

What is the track record of General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products in delivering similar ordnance contracts on time and within budget?

General Dynamics Armament and Technical Products (GDATP), now part of General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems (GD-OTS), has a long-standing track record in delivering ordnance and weapon systems to the U.S. military. Historically, the company has been a significant supplier of ammunition, weapon components, and related systems. While specific on-time and within-budget performance metrics for every contract are not always publicly detailed, GDATP has generally been considered a reliable contractor within the defense industrial base. Major defense contractors often face scrutiny regarding delivery schedules and cost adherence, particularly on large, complex programs. However, GDATP's continued success in securing substantial contracts like this one suggests a generally positive performance history and a strong capability to meet the demanding requirements of the Department of the Army for critical ordnance and weapon systems.

What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single contractor for such a critical defense capability?

Relying on a single contractor, even one as established as General Dynamics, for critical defense capabilities like small arms and ordnance presents several risks. Firstly, it creates a potential single point of failure; if the contractor experiences production issues, financial instability, or supply chain disruptions, the military's supply of essential materiel could be jeopardized. Secondly, it can reduce competitive pressure over time, potentially leading to higher prices in future contract renewals or less incentive for innovation. Thirdly, there's a risk of knowledge and capability loss within the government if the contractor becomes the sole repository of specialized manufacturing expertise. To mitigate these risks, the government often employs strategies such as maintaining industrial base readiness, fostering competition through multiple award contracts where feasible, and developing contingency plans for supplier transitions or government-led production if necessary.

How has the demand for 'Guns, Through 30 MM' (NAICS 332994) evolved since this contract was awarded in 2006?

The demand for 'Guns, Through 30 MM' (NAICS 332994) has seen significant evolution since the 2006 award of this contract. In 2006, the U.S. was heavily engaged in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, driving substantial demand for small arms, ammunition, and related ordnance. This period likely represented a peak in demand for many items within this category. Following the drawdown of these conflicts, demand has shifted towards modernization of existing platforms, development of new weapon systems incorporating advanced technologies (e.g., smart munitions, directed energy), and sustained readiness requirements. While the absolute volume may have decreased from peak wartime levels, the complexity and technological sophistication of the required products have increased. Furthermore, geopolitical shifts and the rise of new potential adversaries continue to influence defense spending priorities and the specific types of ordnance being developed and procured.

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: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 128 LAKESIDE AVE, BURLINGTON, VT, 00

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline