DoD awards $76M undefinitized contract for fire control radar and UAS data link support to Longbow LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $76,182,461 ($76.2M)

Contractor: Longbow LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-01-01

End Date: 2022-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,006 days

Daily Burn Rate: $38.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::CL,CT::IGF CONTRACT W58RGZ-17-C-0027 IS AWARDED AS AN UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT FOR REQUIREMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE LIFE CYCLE CONTRACTOR SUPPORT FOR THE FIRE CONTROL RADAR AND UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM TACTICAL COMMON DATA LINK ASSEMBLY.

Place of Performance

Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32819

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $76.2 million to LONGBOW LLC for work described as: IGF::CL,CT::IGF CONTRACT W58RGZ-17-C-0027 IS AWARDED AS AN UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT FOR REQUIREMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE LIFE CYCLE CONTRACTOR SUPPORT FOR THE FIRE CONTROL RADAR AND UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM TACTICAL COMMON DATA LINK ASSEMBLY. Key points: 1. Contract awarded as undefinitized, indicating initial uncertainty in scope or pricing. 2. Longbow LLC, the sole contractor, raises questions about competition and potential price overruns. 3. The contract duration of over 5 years suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. Firm Fixed Price contract type aims to control costs, but initial undefinitized nature warrants scrutiny. 5. The significant value of this contract highlights its importance to Army aviation readiness. 6. Lack of competition may limit opportunities for other capable small and large businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's undefinitized nature at award raises concerns about initial cost control and oversight. Without a clear baseline, it's difficult to assess if the final price represents good value for money. Benchmarking against similar undefinitized contracts or historical data for fire control radar and UAS components would be necessary to determine fair pricing. The lack of competition further complicates value assessment, as there's no market pressure to drive down costs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one contractor, Longbow LLC, was solicited. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple vendors submitting proposals. While sole-source awards can be justified in specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities, urgent needs), they generally lead to less price discovery and potentially higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not benefit from the cost savings that typically arise from a competitive bidding environment. This could result in a higher overall expenditure for the required goods and services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army aviation units relying on functional fire control radar and Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) tactical common data links. The contract delivers essential support services for critical components of military aircraft and drone systems. Services are likely concentrated in Florida, as indicated by the 'ST' and 'SN' fields. The contract supports a specialized segment of the aerospace and defense manufacturing workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Undefinitized contract award suggests potential for cost growth before final definitization.
Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially leading to suboptimal pricing.
Long contract duration increases exposure to potential cost escalations over time.
Lack of detailed scope at award makes performance monitoring more challenging.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract type, once definitized, provides cost certainty.
Award to a single entity may indicate specialized or unique capabilities required.
Contract supports critical defense systems, ensuring operational readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the "Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing" sector (NAICS 336413), a segment of the broader aerospace and defense industry. This industry is characterized by high technological complexity, stringent quality requirements, and significant government procurement. The market size for defense-related manufacturing is substantial, driven by national security needs. This contract represents spending on specialized components essential for modern military aviation platforms, including radar systems and data links for unmanned systems.

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 implies no subcontracting opportunities were mandated through a competitive process. This means the primary contract value flows directly to Longbow LLC, with limited direct benefit or mandated inclusion for the small business ecosystem in this specific procurement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The undefinitized nature of the contract necessitates close monitoring and timely definitization to ensure costs are reasonable and scope is well-defined. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the initial lack of definitization.

Related Government Programs

Army Aviation Systems
Fire Control Systems
Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Components
Tactical Data Links
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Undefinitized Contract Award
Sole-Source Award
Potential for Cost Overruns
Lack of Competitive Benchmarking

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $76.2 million to LONGBOW LLC. IGF::CL,CT::IGF CONTRACT W58RGZ-17-C-0027 IS AWARDED AS AN UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT FOR REQUIREMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE LIFE CYCLE CONTRACTOR SUPPORT FOR THE FIRE CONTROL RADAR AND UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEM TACTICAL COMMON DATA LINK ASSEMBLY.

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 $76.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-01-01. End: 2022-06-30.

What is the typical process and risk associated with undefinitized contracts in the Department of Defense?

An undefinitized contract (UDC) is a contract action that is not a firm agreement on all terms, conditions, and prices that will be included in the final contract. It is typically used when the government needs to start work immediately but cannot finalize all contract details, such as scope, specifications, or price, before the contract award. The primary risk associated with UDCs is cost growth, as the contractor may incur costs before the final terms are agreed upon. The government must carefully monitor the contractor's progress and negotiate the final terms (definitization) within a specified timeframe, usually within 180 days, to mitigate these risks. Failure to definitize can lead to disputes and potentially higher costs than if the contract had been fully defined at award. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) provides specific guidance on the use and definitization of UDCs.

How does the sole-source nature of this award impact potential cost savings for taxpayers?

A sole-source award, by definition, eliminates competition. In government contracting, competition is a primary driver for achieving best value and cost savings. When multiple companies compete, they are incentivized to offer lower prices, more innovative solutions, and better terms to win the contract. Without this competitive pressure, the sole-source contractor has less incentive to reduce their price, potentially leading to higher costs for the government and, consequently, taxpayers. While sole-source awards are sometimes necessary due to unique capabilities or urgent needs, they require rigorous justification and careful negotiation by the contracting agency to ensure the price paid is fair and reasonable.

What are the implications of a 2006-day contract duration for cost management and performance?

A contract duration of 2006 days (approximately 5.5 years) is substantial and carries several implications. For cost management, a longer duration increases the government's exposure to potential price fluctuations in labor, materials, and overhead over the contract period. Inflationary pressures and market changes can significantly impact the final cost, especially if the contract includes escalation clauses. For performance, a long duration suggests a stable, ongoing requirement for the services or products. It allows for continuity of operations and potentially fosters a deeper relationship and understanding between the contractor and the government. However, it also necessitates robust performance monitoring mechanisms throughout the contract's life to ensure the contractor consistently meets or exceeds expectations and to identify any performance degradation early on.

Can the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' sector provide benchmarks for this contract's value?

Yes, the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' sector (NAICS 336413) can provide benchmarks, but with caveats. This sector encompasses a wide range of products, from simple components to complex assemblies. To effectively benchmark this $76 million contract, one would need to identify comparable contracts within this NAICS code that involve similar complexity, technology (fire control radar, UAS data links), and contract types (firm-fixed-price). Data from similar procurements, especially those that were competitively awarded, would offer a basis for assessing whether Longbow LLC's pricing is reasonable. However, the sole-source and undefinitized nature of this specific award complicates direct comparisons, as competitive market forces were absent at the time of award.

What is Longbow LLC's track record with similar defense contracts?

Information regarding Longbow LLC's specific track record with similar defense contracts would require access to a comprehensive federal procurement database (e.g., FPDS-NG, SAM.gov). A review would typically involve examining past awards, contract performance evaluations (like Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of contract disputes or modifications. Without direct access to such detailed historical data, it's difficult to assess Longbow LLC's specific performance history related to fire control radar, UAS data links, or undefinitized/sole-source contracts. Generally, agencies assess a contractor's past performance as part of the source selection process, but this information is often proprietary or not publicly detailed for sole-source awards.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W58RGZ16R0053

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Lockheed Martin Corp

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $79,397,843

Exercised Options: $76,182,461

Current Obligation: $76,182,461

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 1

Total Subaward Amount: $55,207

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline