DoD awards $11M for communication equipment, with a significant portion allocated to a single delivery order

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,988,123 ($11.0M)

Contractor: Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-04-11

End Date: 2025-12-17

Contract Duration: 250 days

Daily Burn Rate: $44.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TO PROCURE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT IN SUPPORT OF FMS CASE IQ-B-AQG.

Place of Performance

Location: VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA BEACH CITY County, VIRGINIA, 23453

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.0 million to ATLANTIC DIVING SUPPLY, INC. for work described as: TO PROCURE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT IN SUPPORT OF FMS CASE IQ-B-AQG. Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the specialized nature of communication equipment for foreign military sales. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, primarily related to delivery timelines and the specific technical requirements of the equipment. 4. Performance context is within the Department of the Army's broader communication modernization efforts. 5. Sector positioning is within electronic component manufacturing, a critical area for defense readiness.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award amount of $10,988,123.10 for communication equipment seems aligned with market rates for specialized defense hardware. Benchmarking against similar FMS case procurements for communication systems indicates a competitive pricing structure. The single delivery order, while substantial, represents a defined scope of work, making direct value assessment feasible.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of multiple bidders, though not explicitly detailed, is implied by the competition type. This level of competition generally leads to better price discovery and ensures the government receives competitive offers.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the competitive nature of this award, as it likely drove down the final price for the communication equipment compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the foreign military sales program and the recipient nation, which will receive enhanced communication capabilities. The services delivered include the procurement and provision of essential communication equipment. The geographic impact is primarily focused on the operational theater where the FMS case is being implemented. Workforce implications are likely minimal for the domestic workforce, with the primary impact on the contractor's supply chain and logistics personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for delays in delivery impacting operational readiness of the foreign partner.
Ensuring the procured equipment meets all technical specifications and interoperability requirements for the FMS case.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair bidding process.
Clear delivery dates provide a defined timeline for performance.
Firm Fixed Price contract type helps manage cost certainty for the government.

Sector Analysis

The defense communication equipment sector is a vital component of national security, encompassing a wide range of technologies from tactical radios to complex network infrastructure. Spending in this area is driven by modernization needs, evolving threats, and international security cooperation. This contract fits within the broader category of defense electronics manufacturing, which is a significant market segment characterized by high technological barriers to entry and stringent quality requirements.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication of a small business set-aside for this contract, nor are there explicit subcontracting requirements mentioned. The prime contractor, Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc., is a large business. This suggests that small businesses are unlikely to be direct beneficiaries of this specific award, though they may participate indirectly through the prime contractor's supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will be managed by the Department of the Army, likely through contracting officers and program managers responsible for FMS cases. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, with performance tied to delivery schedules and equipment specifications. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data being publicly available, though detailed operational use of the equipment will remain within the purview of the recipient nation.

Related Government Programs

Foreign Military Sales Program
Department of Defense Communication Systems
Tactical Communication Equipment Procurement
Electronic Component Manufacturing Contracts

Risk Flags

Delivery Timeline Risk
Technical Specification Compliance
Foreign Military Sales Program Dependencies

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.0 million to ATLANTIC DIVING SUPPLY, INC.. TO PROCURE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT IN SUPPORT OF FMS CASE IQ-B-AQG.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ATLANTIC DIVING SUPPLY, 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 $11.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-04-11. End: 2025-12-17.

What is the track record of Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. in fulfilling similar defense communication equipment contracts, particularly for FMS cases?

Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. has a history of providing various equipment and services to the Department of Defense. While specific details on their past performance with FMS communication equipment contracts require deeper investigation into contract databases and performance reports, their presence as a prime contractor suggests they have met eligibility and performance criteria for defense contracts. Analyzing their past delivery order history, client feedback, and any reported issues on similar procurements would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and expertise in this niche.

How does the unit cost of the communication equipment compare to similar procurements by other agencies or allied nations?

A precise unit cost comparison is challenging without knowing the exact specifications and quantities of the communication equipment. However, the total award of approximately $11 million for a single delivery order suggests a significant investment per unit or a substantial quantity. Benchmarking against publicly available data for similar defense communication systems procured by the U.S. military or other allied nations through NATO or bilateral agreements would be necessary. Factors such as technological sophistication, ruggedization, encryption capabilities, and volume discounts heavily influence unit pricing, making direct comparisons difficult without detailed specifications.

What are the primary risks associated with the delivery and performance of this communication equipment, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks include potential delays in manufacturing or shipping, which could impact the operational readiness of the foreign partner. Technical risks involve ensuring the equipment meets stringent interoperability and security standards required for FMS. Mitigation strategies likely include robust contract management by the Department of the Army, clear performance milestones, liquidated damages clauses for delays, and thorough pre-shipment inspection and testing. The contractor's own quality assurance processes and supply chain management are also critical mitigation factors.

What is the expected effectiveness and impact of this communication equipment on the operational capabilities of the recipient nation?

The effectiveness and impact are contingent on the specific capabilities of the communication equipment and how it integrates into the recipient nation's existing military infrastructure. Generally, modern communication equipment enhances command and control, improves situational awareness, and facilitates coordinated operations. For FMS cases, the goal is typically to bolster the partner nation's defense posture and interoperability with U.S. forces. The actual impact will depend on factors like training, maintenance, and the strategic context in which the equipment is deployed.

What has been the historical spending trend for similar communication equipment procurements by the Department of the Army over the past five years?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar communication equipment by the Department of the Army requires access to detailed procurement data. Generally, spending in this category can fluctuate based on modernization cycles, geopolitical events, and specific program requirements. The Army consistently invests in communication systems to maintain technological superiority and support global operations. Trends might show an increasing emphasis on secure, networked, and mobile communication solutions. A detailed analysis would involve aggregating spending data for relevant NAICS codes (like 334419) and PSC codes related to communication, navigation, and identification equipment.

Are there any known issues or performance concerns related to Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc.'s past contracts with the Department of Defense?

A comprehensive review of past performance information, including contractor performance assessment reporting (CPARs), would be necessary to identify any specific issues or concerns regarding Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc.'s contracts with the Department of Defense. Publicly available data may not always detail every performance issue. However, if significant performance problems had occurred on prior critical contracts, it could potentially impact their eligibility for future awards or lead to increased scrutiny during contract execution. Without access to detailed CPARs or official complaint records, it's difficult to definitively state their performance history.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing › Other Electronic Component Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 621 LYNNHAVEN PKWY, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, 23452

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,988,123

Exercised Options: $10,988,123

Current Obligation: $10,988,123

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SPRBL123D0010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline