DoD awards $8.8M for Bradley Fighting Vehicle system technical support, with no competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $8,845,734 ($8.8M)

Contractor: DRS Network & Imaging Systems LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-11-05

End Date: 2026-12-18

Contract Duration: 773 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: SYSTEM TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE SYSTEM, THE ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE SYSTEM, AND THE CARRIER OF THE MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM, TO INCLUDE DEVELOPING, UPDATING, MODIFYING, AND FIELDING, SOFTWARE, HARDWARE.

Place of Performance

Location: MELBOURNE, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32935

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $8.8 million to DRS NETWORK & IMAGING SYSTEMS LLC for work described as: SYSTEM TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE SYSTEM, THE ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE SYSTEM, AND THE CARRIER OF THE MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM, TO INCLUDE DEVELOPING, UPDATING, MODIFYING, AND FIELDING, SOFTWARE, HARDWARE. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical armored vehicle systems, indicating a need for specialized technical expertise. 2. The sole-source nature of this award raises questions about potential price inflation and limited innovation. 3. A long contract duration of over two years suggests a sustained need for these support services. 4. The award is for Engineering Services, aligning with the technical demands of advanced military hardware. 5. The contractor, DRS Network & Imaging Systems LLC, has a track record in defense contracting. 6. The absence of small business involvement warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $8.8 million for technical support of major military vehicle systems appears reasonable given the specialized nature of the work. However, without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or alternative providers. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure allows for cost reimbursement plus a fixed fee, which can incentivize cost control but also carries risks if not closely monitored. Comparing this to similar sole-source technical support contracts for complex defense systems would provide better context for value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor was solicited. This approach is typically used when a unique capability or proprietary technology is required, or in cases of urgent need where competition is not feasible. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore a wider range of solutions and potentially secure more favorable pricing through a bidding process. It also suggests that DRS Network & Imaging Systems LLC may possess specialized knowledge or technology essential for these specific vehicle systems.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the government does not benefit from the price reductions typically achieved through competitive bidding. This limits the government's leverage in negotiating prices and may result in less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel operating and maintaining the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle System, and the Multiple Launch Rocket System Carrier. The services delivered include developing, updating, modifying, and fielding software and hardware for these critical defense platforms. The geographic impact is primarily within the operational theaters and training grounds of the U.S. Army, with potential implications for readiness and modernization efforts. Workforce implications include the need for highly skilled engineers and technical specialists to support these advanced military systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potential cost savings for taxpayers.
Lack of competition may reduce incentives for contractor innovation and efficiency.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract requires robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
Absence of small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements may limit opportunities for smaller firms.

Positive Signals

Contract addresses critical technical support for essential military vehicle systems.
Contractor has established expertise in defense systems, suggesting capability to perform.
Long-term contract provides stability for essential support services.
Focus on software and hardware development indicates modernization efforts.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically supporting defense systems. The market for technical support of military hardware is specialized, often dominated by a few key contractors with the requisite security clearances and technical expertise. The U.S. Department of Defense is a significant consumer of such services, with annual spending in the billions across various platforms. Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without competitive data, but it represents a small fraction of the overall defense engineering services budget.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to include any specific small business set-aside provisions, nor is there an indication of mandatory subcontracting goals for small businesses. The sole-source nature of the award further limits the likelihood of small business participation. This could mean that opportunities for small businesses to contribute their specialized skills or services to this critical defense program are missed. Further review of the contractor's subcontracting plan, if available, would be necessary to assess potential impacts on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Army, given its role in procuring these services. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type necessitates rigorous financial oversight to ensure that costs are reasonable and allocable, and that the fixed fee is earned. Transparency may be limited due to the sole-source nature and the sensitive defense context. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Bradley Fighting Vehicle System
Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle System
Multiple Launch Rocket System Carrier
Department of Defense Engineering Services
Military Vehicle Maintenance and Support

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Cost-plus contract type

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $8.8 million to DRS NETWORK & IMAGING SYSTEMS LLC. SYSTEM TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE SYSTEM, THE ARMORED MULTI-PURPOSE VEHICLE SYSTEM, AND THE CARRIER OF THE MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM, TO INCLUDE DEVELOPING, UPDATING, MODIFYING, AND FIELDING, SOFTWARE, HARDWARE.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DRS NETWORK & IMAGING SYSTEMS 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 $8.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-11-05. End: 2026-12-18.

What is the track record of DRS Network & Imaging Systems LLC with the Department of Defense, particularly concerning sole-source contracts?

DRS Network & Imaging Systems LLC, a subsidiary of Leonardo DRS, has a significant history of contracting with the Department of Defense, providing a range of products and services including electro-optical/infrared systems, network solutions, and power systems. While specific data on their sole-source contract history is not readily available in public databases, their extensive involvement in defense indicates a strong existing relationship and capability. Sole-source awards are often granted to established contractors possessing unique technologies or critical support roles. Analyzing past performance on similar sole-source contracts, if accessible, would provide further insight into their reliability and cost-effectiveness in such scenarios. However, the general trend for established defense contractors is to secure a substantial portion of their business through sole-source or limited-competition awards due to the specialized nature of defense requirements.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) typically perform in sole-source defense contracts compared to competitive bids?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are common in defense procurement, especially for research, development, and complex services where the scope may evolve. In a sole-source scenario, CPFF can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it allows the government to secure necessary services when competition is not feasible, and the fixed fee provides the contractor with a defined profit margin. On the other hand, without competitive pressure, there's a reduced incentive for the contractor to aggressively control costs, as the government bears the majority of the direct costs. The fixed fee, however, is intended to provide a level of predictability. Compared to competitive bids, where price is a major factor, sole-source CPFF contracts are inherently more susceptible to higher overall costs for the government. Robust government oversight is crucial to scrutinize allowable costs and ensure the fixed fee is justified and earned.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a sole-source contract for critical military vehicle system support?

The primary risk of a sole-source award for critical military vehicle system support is the potential for inflated costs due to the lack of competitive bidding. Without competing offers, the government may pay a premium for the services. Another significant risk is reduced innovation; the sole provider may have less incentive to develop more efficient or advanced solutions when faced with no competition. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes dependent on a single supplier, making future transitions difficult and potentially costly. Furthermore, if the contractor experiences financial difficulties or operational issues, it could directly impact the readiness and sustainment of these vital military assets, posing a national security risk.

What is the historical spending pattern for technical support of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System and similar platforms by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on technical support for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System and comparable armored platforms by the Department of the Army is substantial, reflecting the long service life and ongoing modernization needs of these assets. While precise figures for this specific contract's scope are not detailed, the Army consistently allocates significant budgets towards sustainment, upgrades, and technical support for its vehicle fleet. This includes contracts for software, hardware, engineering services, and field support. Spending often fluctuates based on modernization programs, operational tempo, and the age of the systems. The Bradley, having been in service for decades, requires continuous support. Awards for such services are typically long-term and can run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over their lifecycle, often involving sole-source or limited-competition contracts due to the specialized nature of the technology and existing contractor relationships.

What are the implications of this contract's duration (over two years) for the long-term sustainment strategy of these vehicle systems?

The contract's duration of over two years (773 days) suggests a strategic commitment to ensuring the continued operational readiness and technical integrity of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle System, and the Multiple Launch Rocket System Carrier. Such a duration indicates that the required technical support is not a short-term fix but an ongoing necessity for the foreseeable future. This extended period allows for sustained development, updates, and fielding of software and hardware, crucial for adapting these platforms to evolving threats and operational requirements. It also provides a degree of stability for the contractor, enabling them to invest in specialized personnel and resources. However, it also underscores the importance of robust oversight to ensure that the services remain effective and cost-efficient throughout the contract's term, and to plan for future sustainment needs beyond this period.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W912CH24R0178

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Leonardo SPA

Address: 100 N BABCOCK ST, MELBOURNE, FL, 32935

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,465,898

Exercised Options: $9,465,898

Current Obligation: $8,845,734

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline