Army awards $7M contract for Integrated Fires Test Campaign, focusing on RAM-HSI data collection

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $7,047,280 ($7.0M)

Contractor: Sawtst LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-04-28

End Date: 2026-01-18

Contract Duration: 265 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: THE INTEGRATED FIRES TEST CAMPAIGN FISCAL YEAR 2025 IFTC25 IBCS FOT AND E EVENTS SHALL DELIVER REQUIRED SERVICES TO PROVIDE RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY-HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION RAM-HSI DATA COLLECTION.

Place of Performance

Location: WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE, DONA ANA County, NEW MEXICO, 88002

State: New Mexico Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $7.0 million to SAWTST LLC for work described as: THE INTEGRATED FIRES TEST CAMPAIGN FISCAL YEAR 2025 IFTC25 IBCS FOT AND E EVENTS SHALL DELIVER REQUIRED SERVICES TO PROVIDE RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY-HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION RAM-HSI DATA COLLECTION. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical reliability, availability, maintainability, and human systems integration data. 2. Competition was full and open after exclusion of sources, suggesting a deliberate procurement process. 3. The contract duration of 265 days indicates a focused, short-term testing and data collection effort. 4. The primary deliverable is data collection, essential for future system development and validation. 5. The contract is a delivery order, implying it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle or a pre-existing framework. 6. The New Mexico location suggests a specific testing or operational environment.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $7.05 million for a 265-day period appears reasonable for specialized engineering and testing services. Benchmarking against similar complex testing campaigns is difficult without more specific details on the scope of 'required services.' However, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure allows for flexibility while providing a defined profit margin for the contractor.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This indicates that while the competition was broad, specific sources may have been excluded based on pre-defined criteria or prior arrangements. The exact number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a competitive process was intended.

Taxpayer Impact: This procurement method aims to ensure fair pricing and access for qualified contractors, potentially leading to better value for taxpayers by avoiding sole-source awards.

Public Impact

The U.S. Army benefits from crucial data to assess and improve the reliability and maintainability of its integrated fire systems. Services delivered include vital RAM-HSI data collection, directly supporting system readiness and future upgrades. The geographic impact is centered in New Mexico, likely at a specific testing facility or operational area. Workforce implications include specialized engineering and technical roles required for complex testing and data analysis.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' clause in a full and open competition warrants further scrutiny to understand the rationale and ensure no qualified vendors were unfairly barred.
Lack of specific performance metrics or KPIs in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the contractor's potential for exceeding expectations.
The CPFF contract type can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently, though the fixed fee component mitigates some risk.

Positive Signals

The use of 'full and open competition' signals an intent to leverage market capabilities and achieve competitive pricing.
The focus on RAM-HSI data collection is a positive indicator of a commitment to improving system performance and safety.
The contract is awarded to SAWTST LLC, whose performance on this and other contracts would be a key positive signal if historically strong.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), which is a significant segment of federal spending supporting defense and technology development. The Integrated Fires Test Campaign (IFTC25) is a specialized area within defense R&D and testing, focusing on complex weapon systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale testing and evaluation contracts for advanced military hardware, often running into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SS: false, SB: false). SAWTST LLC's size is not specified, but the nature of the work suggests it could be a mid-to-large-sized enterprise. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses, which could limit opportunities for smaller players in this specific contract's execution.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily 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 for audits and investigations into fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed performance reports are often not publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD)
Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC)
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Programs
Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Testing
Combat Systems Development

Risk Flags

Competition Method: 'Exclusion of sources' requires verification of justification.
Contract Type: CPFF requires diligent cost oversight.
Performance Metrics: Lack of specific KPIs makes outcome assessment difficult.
Contractor Past Performance: Needs detailed review for suitability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $7.0 million to SAWTST LLC. THE INTEGRATED FIRES TEST CAMPAIGN FISCAL YEAR 2025 IFTC25 IBCS FOT AND E EVENTS SHALL DELIVER REQUIRED SERVICES TO PROVIDE RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, MAINTAINABILITY-HUMAN SYSTEMS INTEGRATION RAM-HSI DATA COLLECTION.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SAWTST 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 $7.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-04-28. End: 2026-01-18.

What is SAWTST LLC's past performance record with the Department of Defense, particularly on similar testing and data collection contracts?

Assessing SAWTST LLC's past performance is crucial for understanding their capability to execute the Integrated Fires Test Campaign effectively. A review of their contract history within the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) would reveal previous awards, contract types, and agencies served. Specifically, looking for contracts related to engineering services, complex system testing, data acquisition, and reliability/maintainability analysis would provide the most relevant context. Performance evaluations (CPARS) associated with these past contracts, if available, would offer qualitative insights into their timeliness, cost control, management, and technical proficiency. A strong track record on similar, high-stakes defense testing programs would significantly de-risk this current award and suggest a high likelihood of successful delivery.

How does the $7.05 million cost compare to similar Integrated Fires Test Campaigns or RAM-HSI data collection efforts?

Benchmarking the $7.05 million cost requires comparing it against similar contracts for Integrated Fires Test Campaigns (IFTC) or Reliability, Availability, Maintainability-Human Systems Integration (RAM-HSI) data collection. Without access to detailed scopes of work for comparable contracts, a precise comparison is challenging. However, the contract value appears moderate for a specialized defense testing initiative spanning nearly nine months. Factors influencing cost include the complexity of the systems under test, the number of test events, the duration and intensity of data collection, and the required technical expertise. If similar, smaller-scale RAM-HSI efforts have cost millions, or larger, more complex IFTC programs have cost tens or hundreds of millions, this contract's value can be contextualized. The CPFF structure also means the government pays for direct costs plus a fixed fee, so the 'value' is tied to the efficiency of cost management and the quality of data produced.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

Primary risks for this contract include potential technical challenges in data collection from complex integrated fire systems, schedule delays due to unforeseen testing issues, and contractor performance deficiencies. The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition might introduce a risk if it inadvertently limited the pool of highly capable vendors. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust government oversight, clear performance standards within the contract, regular progress reviews, and potentially built-in incentives or penalties. The CPFF structure requires diligent government monitoring of costs to prevent overruns. Furthermore, SAWTST LLC's own internal risk management processes, based on their past performance and technical approach, will be critical. The relatively short duration (265 days) might mitigate some long-term performance risks but intensifies the need for efficient execution.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method in ensuring optimal value for taxpayer money in this context?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad market access with specific requirements. It suggests that while the competition was not restricted to a pre-qualified list, certain vendors were excluded based on criteria like capability, past performance, or specific technical requirements that only a subset of the market could meet. This can be effective if the exclusions are well-justified and based on objective standards, preventing non-capable vendors from bidding and wasting resources. It potentially leads to better value than a sole-source award by introducing competition among qualified entities. However, if the exclusions are too narrow or poorly justified, it could limit competition and potentially increase costs compared to a truly unrestricted full and open process. The effectiveness hinges on the transparency and validity of the exclusion criteria.

What are the historical spending patterns for Integrated Fires Test Campaigns or similar Army testing programs?

Historical spending patterns for Integrated Fires Test Campaigns (IFTC) and similar Army testing programs typically show significant and often increasing investment, driven by the continuous evolution of military technology and the need for rigorous validation. These programs can range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on the scale and number of systems being tested. Spending is often concentrated within specific Army commands like the Army Test and Evaluation Command (ATEC) or program executive offices (PEOs) responsible for major weapon systems. Budgets can fluctuate based on defense priorities, congressional appropriations, and the lifecycle stage of various programs. The $7.05 million for IFTC25 represents a specific task order, likely part of a larger, multi-year testing and evaluation budget for the Army's modernization efforts.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 401 WESTPARK CRT, STE 100, PEACHTREE CITY, GA, 30269

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,383,029

Exercised Options: $11,383,029

Current Obligation: $7,047,280

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9115116D0007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline