DoD's $27.2M Common Training Instrumentation Architecture contract awarded to General Dynamics Mission Systems
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $27,233,628 ($27.2M)
Contractor: General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2020-02-01
End Date: 2025-01-31
Contract Duration: 1,826 days
Daily Burn Rate: $14.9K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: COMMON TRAINING INSTRUMENTATION ARCHITECTURE FOR CONSOLIDATED PRODUCT-LINE MANAGEMENT
Place of Performance
Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32826
State: Florida Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $27.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC. for work described as: COMMON TRAINING INSTRUMENTATION ARCHITECTURE FOR CONSOLIDATED PRODUCT-LINE MANAGEMENT Key points: 1. Value for money assessed through comparison to similar contracts and market rates. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators include contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) which may allow for cost overruns. 4. Performance context is within the Department of the Army's training and simulation needs. 5. Sector positioning is within defense contracting, specifically for training and simulation systems.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure warrants careful monitoring for cost efficiency, as it incentivizes cost incurrence. Benchmarking against similar complex training instrumentation systems is crucial to determine if the overall value is competitive. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the CPFF type suggests a higher risk of cost escalation compared to fixed-price contracts.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of a competitive bidding process is generally positive for price discovery and can lead to more favorable terms for the government. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation implies a robust competition.
Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically fosters a more competitive environment, potentially leading to lower prices and better value for the government's investment.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Army, receiving advanced training instrumentation. Services delivered include the development and maintenance of a consolidated product-line management architecture for training systems. The contract has a geographic impact primarily in Florida, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for engineers, technicians, and project managers within General Dynamics Mission Systems.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed stringently.
- Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess effectiveness.
- Long contract duration (5 years) increases the risk of scope creep or evolving technological needs not being met.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process.
- Contractor is a well-established defense contractor with experience in similar systems.
- Consolidated product-line management architecture aims to improve efficiency and reduce redundancy.
Sector Analysis
The defense sector, particularly the training and simulation sub-sector, is characterized by significant government investment in advanced technologies. This contract fits within the broader trend of modernizing military training capabilities through integrated digital systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale simulation and training system development contracts within the DoD, which often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) is false, and there is no indication of a small business set-aside (ss). This suggests that the prime contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but they are not explicitly detailed in this summary. The overall impact on the small business ecosystem is likely indirect, depending on the prime contractor's subcontracting strategy.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are usually tied to contract milestones, performance reviews, and adherence to the Cost Plus Fixed Fee terms. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though detailed operational oversight information is often sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Army Training Information Systems
- Simulation and Training Systems
- Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) IT Support
- Program Executive Office (PEO) Simulation, Training and Instrumentation
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type carries inherent cost overrun risks.
- Long contract duration (5 years) increases risk of technological obsolescence and changing requirements.
- Lack of specific performance metrics in summary data hinders effectiveness assessment.
Tags
defense, department-of-the-army, training-systems, simulation, general-dynamics-mission-systems, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, florida, product-line-management, instrumentation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $27.2 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS MISSION SYSTEMS, INC.. COMMON TRAINING INSTRUMENTATION ARCHITECTURE FOR CONSOLIDATED PRODUCT-LINE MANAGEMENT
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 (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $27.2 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2020-02-01. End: 2025-01-31.
What is the track record of General Dynamics Mission Systems in delivering similar training instrumentation systems?
General Dynamics Mission Systems (GDMS) has a substantial track record in developing and delivering complex defense systems, including simulation and training solutions. They are a major prime contractor for the U.S. military, involved in various aspects of command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. Their experience often includes integrating hardware and software for realistic training environments. While specific project details for similar instrumentation architectures are proprietary, GDMS's overall portfolio suggests they possess the technical capability and program management experience necessary for this type of contract. Their history includes large-scale programs for various branches of the military, indicating a capacity to handle significant budgets and complex technical requirements.
How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other contract types for similar defense training systems?
Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are common in defense acquisition, particularly for research and development or when the scope of work is not fully defined at the outset, as is often the case with complex, evolving systems like training instrumentation. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers more flexibility for the contractor to incur costs and be reimbursed, plus a predetermined fee. This can be advantageous when innovation or adaptation is key. However, FFP contracts generally offer better value for taxpayers when requirements are well-defined, as they place the cost risk on the contractor. Other contract types like Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) or Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) introduce performance incentives, which CPFF lacks. Therefore, while CPFF provides flexibility, it carries a higher risk of cost overruns and requires robust government oversight to ensure value.
What are the primary risks associated with a five-year contract for training instrumentation architecture?
A five-year contract duration for training instrumentation architecture presents several key risks. Firstly, technological obsolescence is a significant concern; technology in simulation and training evolves rapidly, and a system designed today might be outdated within five years. Secondly, scope creep is a common risk in long-term, flexible contracts like CPFF. Requirements can expand beyond the original intent, leading to increased costs and delays. Thirdly, contractor performance can degrade over time, or key personnel might leave, impacting the project's momentum and quality. Finally, the government's strategic needs or budget priorities might shift over five years, potentially rendering the investment less relevant or requiring costly modifications. Effective risk mitigation requires continuous monitoring, clear performance metrics, and agile program management.
What is the potential impact of this contract on the broader defense training and simulation market?
This contract, awarded to General Dynamics Mission Systems, contributes to the consolidation and modernization of training instrumentation architectures within the Department of the Army. It signals a continued investment in integrated, product-line-based approaches to training system development, potentially influencing how other branches or defense contractors structure their training solutions. The emphasis on a consolidated architecture could drive demand for interoperable components and standardized interfaces within the defense simulation and training market. It may also encourage competitors to focus on similar integrated solutions or specialized niches within the broader market. The scale of the contract suggests it could influence market dynamics by reinforcing the position of major defense integrators in this specialized segment.
How does the 'Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing' NAICS code align with the contract's description?
The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 333318, 'Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing,' is a broad category. While the contract is for 'Common Training Instrumentation Architecture,' which involves complex software and systems integration, the underlying hardware components, specialized machinery, and manufacturing aspects of creating training devices or simulators can fall under this classification. This code encompasses the manufacturing of machinery used in various service industries, including those that might require specialized equipment for training purposes. It's a somewhat general classification, but it can encompass the production or integration of physical components that are part of a larger training system architecture.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: W900KK19R0021
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Wico Limited
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: $28,441,440
Exercised Options: $28,441,440
Current Obligation: $27,233,628
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 11
Total Subaward Amount: $2,706,707
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W900KK20D0007
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2020-02-01
Current End Date: 2025-01-31
Potential End Date: 2025-01-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2024-09-04
More Contracts from General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc.
- 200410!005969!2100!w15p7t!usa Communications-Electronics !w15p7t04ce405 !A!N! !N! ! !20040716!20111230!046863929!046863929!001381284!n!general Dynamics Decision Syst!8201 E Mcdowell Road !scottsdale !az!85257!65000!013!04!scottsdale !maricopa !arizona !+000010000000!n!n!000000000000!ac63!rdte/Electronics&communication Eq-Adv Tech DEV !A7 !electronics and Communication Equip !360 !jtrs Cluster I !541330!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!b! !A!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $1.5B (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $1.4B (Department of Defense)
- THE Space Network (SN) Consists of a Space Segment Comprised of the Tracking and Data Relay Satellites (tdrss), and a Ground Segment (sngs). the SN Provides the Capability for Global Space-To-Ground Telecommunications and Tracking Coverage for LOW Earth Orbit (LEO) and Near-Earth Spaceflight Missions, Including Both Robotic and Human Space Flight. the Sngs Includes Facilities and Systems Located AT the White Sands Complex (WSC) AT LAS Cruces, NM the Guam Remote Ground Terminal (grgt) AT Guam and Space Network Expansion (SNE) East AT Blossom Point, MD. the Purpose of the Sgss Project IS to Implement a Modern Ground Segment That Will Enable the SN to Continue to Deliver High Quality Services to the SN Community, Meet Stakeholder Requirements, and Significantly Reduce Required Operations and Maintenance Resources — $1.2B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- Federal Contract — $1.2B (Department of Defense)
- SDA Tranche 1 Operations and Integration — $861.6M (Department of Defense)
View all General Dynamics Mission Systems, Inc. federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)