DoD's $61.3M Electronic Warfare Trainer Contract Awarded to General Dynamics Mission Systems

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $61,298,866 ($61.3M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-05-21

End Date: 2015-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,866 days

Daily Burn Rate: $32.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IEWTPT INTELLIGENCE AND ELETRONIC WARFARE TACTICAL PROFICIENCY TRAINER

Place of Performance

Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32826

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $61.3 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: IEWTPT INTELLIGENCE AND ELETRONIC WARFARE TACTICAL PROFICIENCY TRAINER Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. The contract duration of 1866 days (over 5 years) suggests a long-term need for the services. 3. The use of a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely managed. 4. The specific NAICS code (541512) indicates a focus on computer systems design, a critical area for modern defense. 5. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, raising questions about market competitiveness. 6. The absence of small business set-aside indicates this contract was not specifically targeted for smaller enterprises.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its sole-source nature and the specific nature of the 'Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Tactical Proficiency Trainer' system. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if the pricing reflects market rates or represents a good value for the government. The CPFF structure necessitates rigorous oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and that the fixed fee is appropriate for the scope of work. Further analysis would require access to detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons with similar, competitively procured training systems.

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 among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or technology required for the service or product. While it ensures the government can acquire a specific solution, it bypasses the competitive process that usually drives down prices and fosters innovation. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for other companies to bid, potentially leading to higher costs than if a competitive bidding process had been employed.

Taxpayer Impact: The sole-source award means taxpayers did not benefit from the price reductions typically achieved through competitive bidding. This could result in a higher overall expenditure for this training system compared to a scenario with multiple bidders.

Public Impact

Personnel in intelligence and electronic warfare roles within the Department of Defense will receive advanced training. The training system is designed to enhance the proficiency of military personnel in critical electronic warfare operations. The contract's performance is likely concentrated in Florida, as indicated by the state code 'FL'. This contract supports the development and maintenance of specialized training capabilities, indirectly impacting the defense technology workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost escalation.
Lack of transparency in sole-source justification requires scrutiny.
Specific performance metrics and their achievement are not detailed, making outcome assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Addresses a critical defense capability (electronic warfare training).
Awarded to a known defense contractor with relevant experience.
Contract duration suggests a sustained commitment to enhancing warfighter skills.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector, particularly within electronic warfare and intelligence training, is characterized by high technological complexity and specialized expertise. Contracts in this area often involve significant research and development, as well as the integration of sophisticated hardware and software. General Dynamics Mission Systems is a major player in this market, providing a range of defense electronics and systems. The market size for such specialized training solutions is substantial, driven by continuous advancements in military technology and evolving threat landscapes. This contract fits within the broader category of defense systems integration and simulation/training services.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for them mentioned in the provided data. The award to a large prime contractor like General Dynamics Mission Systems suggests that the primary focus was on the prime's capabilities. This could mean limited direct opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract, although they might be involved further down the supply chain. The absence of a small business focus may not be unusual for highly specialized, sole-source defense contracts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure necessitates close monitoring of costs incurred by the contractor to ensure they align with the agreed-upon fixed fee and scope of work. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and the detailed cost elements would be crucial for effective oversight. Inspector General involvement would be triggered by any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) Training Systems
Electronic Warfare Systems Development
Military Simulation and Training
Defense Contractor Services
Department of Defense IT and Systems Integration

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may indicate limited competition.
CPFF contract type can lead to cost overruns.
Lack of public details on justification for sole-source award.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $61.3 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. IEWTPT INTELLIGENCE AND ELETRONIC WARFARE TACTICAL PROFICIENCY TRAINER

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 (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $61.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-05-21. End: 2015-06-30.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to General Dynamics Mission Systems?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are awarded when a unique capability, proprietary technology, or urgent need exists that only one contractor can fulfill. For this 'IEWTPT INTELLIGENCE AND ELETRONIC WARFARE TACTICAL PROFICIENCY TRAINER' contract, the justification would likely center on General Dynamics Mission Systems possessing exclusive rights to the technology, specialized expertise, or a critical component essential for the trainer that cannot be replicated or obtained from other sources within the required timeframe. A thorough review of the contract file and associated documentation would be necessary to ascertain the precise reasons.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type impact cost control and value for money in this scenario?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. While this structure can be beneficial for complex projects where the scope is not fully defined, it shifts much of the cost risk to the government. If the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, the government still pays those costs, plus the fixed fee. Effective cost control relies heavily on robust government oversight, detailed cost tracking, and negotiation of a reasonable fixed fee. Without strong oversight, there is a risk of cost overruns and reduced value for money, as the incentive for the contractor to control costs is primarily tied to the fixed fee rather than the total project cost.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for a significant defense training system?

The primary risk of a sole-source award is the lack of competitive pressure, which can lead to inflated prices and reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or optimize performance. Taxpayers may end up paying more than they would in a competitive environment. Additionally, it can create vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to switch providers in the future. There's also a potential for reduced transparency in pricing and performance metrics. For a critical system like an electronic warfare trainer, reliance on a single source could also pose a supply chain risk if that contractor faces financial difficulties or operational disruptions.

Can the performance and effectiveness of the 'IEWTPT INTELLIGENCE AND ELETRONIC WARFARE TACTICAL PROFICIENCY TRAINER' be assessed based on the provided data?

The provided data is limited and does not contain specific performance metrics, user feedback, or outcome data for the 'IEWTPT INTELLIGENCE AND ELETRONIC WARFARE TACTICAL PROFICIENCY TRAINER'. While the contract duration (over 5 years) and the award to a major defense contractor suggest a commitment to developing and delivering a functional training system, its actual effectiveness in enhancing warfighter proficiency cannot be determined from this information alone. Assessing performance would require access to post-award reports, operational testing results, and potentially feedback from the end-users within the Department of Defense.

How does this contract compare to other spending on defense training and simulation systems?

Without specific comparative data on other defense training and simulation systems, it's difficult to provide a direct comparison. However, the $61.3 million contract value over approximately five years places it as a significant investment in a specialized training capability. Defense spending on training and simulation is a substantial portion of the overall defense budget, driven by the need for realistic and cost-effective training solutions that reduce reliance on live exercises. Contracts for complex systems like electronic warfare trainers are typically high-value due to the advanced technology, software development, and integration required. This contract likely represents a typical investment for a sophisticated, sole-source training system within the broader defense simulation and training market.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Computer Systems Design Services

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W900KK10R0002

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp

Address: 12001 RESEARCH PKWY STE 500, ORLANDO, FL, 32826

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: $77,293,160

Exercised Options: $68,421,604

Current Obligation: $61,298,866

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline