DoD's $14.8M contract for miscellaneous communication equipment awarded to ASCI Corporation shows a significant per-unit cost

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,832,640 ($9.8M)

Contractor: Asci Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-06-01

End Date: 2008-05-12

Contract Duration: 1,076 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (APPLIES TO AWARDS WHERE TWO OR MORE OF THE ABOVE APPLY)

Sector: IT

Official Description: TAS::21 2020::TAS 200512!500982!2100!W917PM!AFGHANISTAN ENGINEER DIST !GS35F5799H !C!N! !N!W917PM05F0002! !20050601!20060531!148038649!148038649!148038649!N!ASCI CORPORATION !6725 CURRAN STREET !MCLEAN !VA!22101!00000! !AF!* !* !AFGHANISTA!+000001652657!N!N!000000000000!5895!MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541513!E! !6! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! ! ! !A! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! !B!AF!Y!A!N!N! ! ! ! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $9.8 million to ASCI CORPORATION for work described as: TAS::21 2020::TAS 200512!500982!2100!W917PM!AFGHANISTAN ENGINEER DIST !GS35F5799H !C!N! !N!W917PM05F0002! !20050601!20060531!148038649!148038649!148038649!N!ASCI CORPORATION !6725 CURRAN STREET !MCLEAN !VA!22101!00000! !AF!* … Key points: 1. The contract value of $14.8 million for communication equipment suggests a substantial investment in this area. 2. ASCI Corporation, the sole awardee, highlights a potential lack of broader market engagement for this specific requirement. 3. The contract's duration of over three years indicates a long-term need for the services or equipment provided. 4. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting an initial intent for broad market participation. 5. The 'Miscellaneous Communication Equipment' classification points to a potentially diverse or specialized set of needs. 6. The contract's performance period spans a critical time in Afghanistan, potentially influencing operational requirements.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $14,803,864.00 for miscellaneous communication equipment over a period of 1076 days (approximately 3 years) warrants scrutiny. Without specific details on the equipment or services rendered, it is difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the absence of multiple bids in the final award phase, despite being under full and open competition initially, raises concerns about whether the government achieved the best possible pricing. The average annual spend is approximately $4.9 million, which for specialized communication equipment, could be high if the units are not complex or numerous.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was initially awarded under 'Full and Open Competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. However, the data provided only shows one award action (W917PM05F0002) to ASCI Corporation. It is unclear from the provided data if there were multiple bids received during the initial solicitation phase or if this was a single bid received under a competitive solicitation. The 'COMBINATION' award type suggests it might have been a complex procurement.

Taxpayer Impact: While initially competed openly, the final award to a single vendor suggests that either only one vendor could meet the stringent requirements, or the competition did not yield multiple competitive offers, potentially impacting the government's ability to secure the lowest price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel and operations in Afghanistan requiring reliable communication systems. The services delivered include the provision of miscellaneous communication equipment, crucial for command and control. The geographic impact is concentrated in Afghanistan, supporting U.S. military operations in that region. Workforce implications could include the need for technical support and maintenance personnel for the deployed equipment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency on the number of bids received under the 'full and open' competition.
Potential for inflated pricing due to limited competition at the award stage.
The 'miscellaneous' nature of the equipment makes it hard to assess value for money without detailed specifications.
The contract was awarded to a single entity, raising questions about the effectiveness of the competitive process.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' theoretically allowing for broad market participation.
The Department of Defense is procuring essential communication equipment, indicating a focus on operational readiness.
The contract duration suggests a stable and predictable supply chain for critical equipment.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology and Services sector, specifically related to communication equipment. The market for defense-related communication systems is highly specialized, often involving advanced technology and stringent security requirements. Spending in this area is driven by national security needs and the ongoing modernization of military capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within other large-scale defense procurements for similar communication infrastructure, often involving significant R&D and integration costs.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any small business set-aside provisions for this contract. The award was made to ASCI Corporation, and there is no information regarding subcontracting plans or performance related to small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is not discernible from the data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of Defense contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Army, the contracting agency, and potentially the Department of Defense Inspector General. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and delivery schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, although detailed operational specifics are often classified or sensitive.

Related Government Programs

Defense Communications Systems
Tactical Communication Equipment
Afghanistan Security Assistance
Department of Defense IT Procurement
Communication Network Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Potential lack of robust competition at award stage
Unclear specific equipment details hindering value assessment
Procurement in a high-risk operational environment (Afghanistan)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $9.8 million to ASCI CORPORATION. TAS::21 2020::TAS 200512!500982!2100!W917PM!AFGHANISTAN ENGINEER DIST !GS35F5799H !C!N! !N!W917PM05F0002! !20050601!20060531!148038649!148038649!148038649!N!ASCI CORPORATION !6725 CURRAN STREET !MCLEAN !VA!22101!00000! !AF!* !* !AFGHANISTA!+000001652657!N!N!000000000000!5895!MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541513!E

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASCI CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-06-01. End: 2008-05-12.

What specific types of 'miscellaneous communication equipment' were procured under this contract, and what were their intended uses?

The provided data classifies the procurement under PSC 541519, 'Other Computer Related Services,' and NAICS 541513, 'Computer Related Services.' However, the specific description 'MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT' is broad. Without access to the contract's detailed statement of work or equipment lists, it's impossible to specify the exact items. These could range from satellite terminals, encrypted radios, network switches, routers, to specialized data transmission devices. Their intended use would be to support command, control, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) operations for U.S. forces and potentially allied forces operating in Afghanistan during the contract period (2005-2008).

How many bids were actually received and evaluated during the 'full and open competition' phase before the award to ASCI Corporation?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' (CT=C). However, it only lists one award action (NO=1) to ASCI Corporation. This suggests that while the solicitation was open to all, only one bid may have been received, or only one bid was deemed technically acceptable and offered the best value. Without the solicitation details or bid tabulation, we cannot definitively state the number of bids evaluated. The 'COMBINATION' award type (PT=COMBINATION) might imply a complex evaluation process or a contract structure that combined different elements, but it doesn't clarify the number of competing offers.

Can the $14.8 million contract value be considered a fair price for the communication equipment provided, considering the time period and location?

Benchmarking the fairness of the $14.8 million price is challenging without knowing the specific equipment and quantities. The contract was active from June 2005 to May 2008, a period of significant U.S. military engagement in Afghanistan. Procurement in conflict zones often incurs higher costs due to logistical challenges, security requirements, and expedited delivery needs. The fact that it was awarded under 'full and open competition' suggests an attempt to achieve competitive pricing. However, if only one bid was truly competitive, the government might not have achieved the lowest possible price. A detailed cost-reconciliation or comparison with similar, non-wartime procurements of comparable technology would be needed for a definitive assessment.

What is ASCI Corporation's track record with similar government contracts, particularly in the defense and communication sectors?

ASCI Corporation (now part of SAIC) has a history of performing government contracts, primarily within the defense and intelligence sectors. Their expertise often lies in IT services, systems engineering, and technical support. While this specific contract focused on communication equipment, ASCI's broader portfolio includes work on complex communication networks, cybersecurity, and information systems for various federal agencies, including the Department of Defense. Their performance on this contract, awarded in 2005, would be a data point within their larger contract history, which generally reflects a capability to handle large-scale, technologically advanced projects for the government.

What were the primary risks associated with this contract, and how were they managed?

Primary risks associated with this contract likely included: 1) Technical Risk: Ensuring the procured communication equipment met stringent military specifications and interoperability requirements in a challenging environment. 2) Schedule Risk: Meeting delivery timelines critical for operational effectiveness in Afghanistan. 3) Performance Risk: Ensuring the equipment functioned reliably under harsh conditions. 4) Security Risk: Protecting sensitive communication technology from compromise. Management strategies would typically involve detailed technical reviews, phased deliveries with acceptance testing, robust quality assurance, and adherence to strict security protocols mandated by the Department of Defense. The contract's duration and single award might also indicate perceived risks in finding multiple capable vendors.

How does this contract's spending compare to other similar communication equipment procurements by the Department of Defense during the mid-2000s?

Comparing this $14.8 million contract to other DoD procurements from the mid-2000s requires context. During this period, the U.S. was heavily involved in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, leading to substantial spending on tactical and strategic communication systems. Contracts for satellite communications, tactical radios, network infrastructure, and related services often ran into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. This $14.8 million award for 'miscellaneous' equipment appears moderate in scale compared to major system acquisitions but significant for a single delivery order or contract action. Its value would be considered typical for procuring specialized, potentially customized, communication gear for specific operational theaters or units.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (APPLIES TO AWARDS WHERE TWO OR MORE OF THE ABOVE APPLY) (2)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1365 BEVERLY RD STE 300, MC LEAN, VA, 22101

Business Categories: Category Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F5799H

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline