Army awards $94.4M undefinitized contract for Longbow LLC's life cycle support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $94,359,613 ($94.4M)

Contractor: Longbow LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-01-01

End Date: 2016-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $64.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF AWARD OF UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT ACTION FOR LIFE CYCLE CONTRACTOR SUPPORT (LCCS) FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013 BASE EFFORT

Place of Performance

Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32819

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $94.4 million to LONGBOW LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF AWARD OF UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT ACTION FOR LIFE CYCLE CONTRACTOR SUPPORT (LCCS) FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013 BASE EFFORT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating predictable costs for the government. 2. The contract duration of 1460 days (4 years) suggests a long-term need for these services. 3. Awarded to a single contractor, raising questions about competition and potential cost efficiencies. 4. The undefinitized contract action (UCA) implies initial work began before full negotiation, potentially increasing risk. 5. Services are categorized under Engineering Services, a critical support function for military operations. 6. The contract is a definitive contract, meaning it's a firm commitment for goods or services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $94.4 million over four years averages to approximately $23.6 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar life cycle contractor support contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the firm-fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to control costs. The undefinitized nature of the initial award warrants scrutiny to ensure the final negotiated price reflects fair market value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This approach is typically used when only one responsible source can provide the required services. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for multiple vendors to bid, which could limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs than if it had been competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not have received the best possible price due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government did not leverage market forces to drive down costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army units relying on life cycle contractor support for their equipment and systems. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, logistics, and technical support for specific military assets. The contract's geographic impact is focused on Florida, where the contractor is located and likely where services are primarily rendered. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for engineers, technicians, and support staff within Longbow LLC and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to the undefinitized contract action (UCA) if final negotiations are not favorable.
Lack of competition limits opportunities for other businesses and may not yield the most cost-effective solution.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical life cycle support could pose a risk if performance issues arise.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
Long contract duration indicates a stable, ongoing requirement for these essential support services.
Award to a single, established contractor may suggest a proven ability to meet the Army's needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting defense-related systems. The market for defense contractor support is substantial, with numerous companies offering specialized services. This contract represents a significant investment in maintaining the operational readiness of Army assets, fitting within the broader landscape of defense procurement where long-term support contracts are common to ensure system longevity and effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a sole-source award, it also did not involve subcontracting opportunities specifically driven by a competitive small business set-aside. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral in terms of direct set-aside benefits, but it represents a large contract that could have been a significant opportunity if competed.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The Inspector General (IG) for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is enhanced through contract databases like FPDS, but the specifics of performance and cost management are primarily internal to the agency and contractor.

Related Government Programs

Life Cycle Contractor Support (LCCS)
Engineering Services
Department of the Army Contracts
Defense Logistics Support
Undefinitized Contract Actions (UCAs)

Risk Flags

Undefinitized Contract Action (UCA)
Sole-Source Award
Lack of Competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $94.4 million to LONGBOW LLC. IGF::OT::IGF AWARD OF UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT ACTION FOR LIFE CYCLE CONTRACTOR SUPPORT (LCCS) FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2013 BASE EFFORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LONGBOW LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $94.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-01-01. End: 2016-12-31.

What is the track record of Longbow LLC in performing similar life cycle contractor support contracts for the Department of Defense?

Assessing Longbow LLC's track record requires a deeper dive into their contract history beyond this single award. Information on past performance, including successful contract completions, any disputes, or contract terminations, would be crucial. Publicly available data may indicate previous awards, but detailed qualitative assessments of their performance on those contracts are often found in government performance evaluations or agency-specific reports. Without this granular data, it's difficult to definitively state their reliability and effectiveness in fulfilling complex life cycle support requirements.

How does the average annual cost of this contract compare to similar life cycle support contracts for comparable military systems?

The average annual cost for this contract is approximately $23.6 million ($94.4M / 4 years). To benchmark this effectively, one would need to identify contracts for similar types of military systems (e.g., aviation, ground vehicles, command and control systems) that provide comprehensive life cycle support, including maintenance, repair, overhaul, and logistics. Comparing the scope of services, the complexity of the systems supported, and the contract type (e.g., firm-fixed-price vs. cost-plus) is essential. Without access to detailed service descriptions and pricing structures of comparable contracts, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging.

What specific risks are associated with the 'undefinitized contract action' (UCA) status of this award?

The primary risk associated with an undefinitized contract action (UCA) is the potential for the final negotiated price to exceed initial estimates or fair market value. UCAs allow work to begin before all contract terms, conditions, and prices are finalized. This can occur due to urgent needs or complex negotiations. Risks include: 1) Cost Growth: The government may end up paying more than anticipated if negotiations are unfavorable. 2) Scope Creep: The scope of work might expand beyond initial intentions without corresponding price adjustments. 3) Negotiation Leverage: The contractor has leverage as work is already underway. 4) Delays: Prolonged negotiations can delay finalization and potentially impact program schedules. Agencies must have clear policies for timely definitization to mitigate these risks.

What is the expected effectiveness of Longbow LLC's services in ensuring the operational readiness of the supported Army assets?

The effectiveness of Longbow LLC's services hinges on their technical expertise, responsiveness, and adherence to performance standards outlined in the contract. Assuming the Army selected Longbow LLC based on a thorough evaluation of their capabilities and past performance, the expectation is that they will maintain and enhance the operational readiness of the supported assets. Key performance indicators (KPIs) within the contract, such as response times for maintenance, equipment uptime rates, and successful repair completion percentages, would be critical metrics to track effectiveness. Without visibility into these specific performance metrics and the Army's ongoing monitoring, a definitive assessment of effectiveness is speculative.

How has federal spending on 'Engineering Services' (NAICS 541330) for the Department of the Army trended over the past five years?

To analyze the trend in federal spending on Engineering Services (NAICS 541330) for the Department of the Army, one would examine historical contract award data over the past five fiscal years. This would involve querying databases like FPDS or USAspending.gov for all contracts awarded under this NAICS code by the Army. The analysis would look at the total dollar value of awards each year, the number of contracts, and potentially the distribution between competitive and sole-source awards. A rising trend might indicate increased reliance on external engineering support, while a declining trend could suggest insourcing or reduced program needs. This contract represents a single data point within that broader spending pattern.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W58RGZ12R0021

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Lockheed Martin Corp (UEI: 834951691)

Address: 5600 W SAND LAKE RD, ORLANDO, FL, 32819

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $94,477,506

Exercised Options: $94,359,613

Current Obligation: $94,359,613

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline