Large Long-term Drone Contract Awarded to URS Federal Services, Inc.

As this will take place at the NTTR/Creech AFB/Tonopah Test Range, I thought this the forum to post this info.

I have read a number of articles on the web about this contract, specifically mentioning both the long term of the contract as well as the dollar figure. $3.6 BILLION over 17 years.

Apparently it is for "testing, tactics development, advanced training, Joint and Air Force urgent operational need missions"

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of these contracts and the terms used could enlighten me/us to what this entails. Does URS supply the drones? The operational and maintenance equipment? Do they operate the drones themselves? What models of drones does this include? Current models or something new/black?

www.defense.gov...

URS Federal Services, Inc., Germantown, Maryland, has been awarded an estimated $3,600,000,000 indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity contract with award fee and award term portions for remotely piloted aircraft services. Contractor will provide testing, tactics development, advanced training, Joint and Air Force urgent operational need missions. Work will be performed at Nevada Test and Training Range, Nevada; Creech Air Force Base, Nevada; and Tonopah Test Range Airfield, Nevada, and is expected to be complete by March 31, 2034. This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with four offers received. Fiscal 2017 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $2,875,894 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Test Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity. (FA8240-17-D-4651).

www.thedrive.com...

There’s a lot to unpack here, so let’s start right at the top. This contract with URS Federal Services is worth $3.6 billion, but the program, whatever it is, isn’t expected to end until the spring of 2034. That’s 17 years for those keeping score. The math works out to more than $210 million per year, on average, over that period or $17.5 million every month. That's a big price tag for services. In 2013, the RAND Corporation estimated that it cost $435 million a year for the Air Force's 20th Fighter Wing at Shaw Air Force Base in South Carolina to operate three squadrons of F-16C/D Vipers. This calculation included everything associated with flying the fighter jets, such as pay checks for military personnel and supporting contractors, fuel, depot-level repairs, as well as indirect support from the Wing's other elements, including security forces guarding the flight line, civil engineers maintaining facilities, and basic utilities and supplies, such as electricity in the barracks and food in the chow halls. A similar analysis of the 187th Fighter Wing, a unit in the Alabama Air National Guard with just one squadron of Vipers, produced a final price tag of just $63.6 million. BOEING In short, the URS Federal Services' contract could potentially cover the full costs of running multiple squadrons of pilotless planes for nearly two decades. And remember that this deal likely only pays for just a portion of the total cost of this project. So, while we don't know what unmanned aircraft—singular or plural—the Maryland-based company will be helping test, the money involved here suggests there are quite a few of them. Of course, none of this is surprising. The Air Force and defense contractors both repeated hint at the existence of multiple top secret "black" military air and space projects.

My info says that URS Federal Services is a subsidiary of URS Corp, which is part of AECOM.
URS Corp had some problems a while ago with a failed bridge, and another with failed parts.
They also have, Hrrrmp, big plans for housing in Brooklyn New York...my nose is twitching.

a reply to: FosterVS

URS is a huge engineering conglomerate. There is not much federal work that they don't have their hands in.

Federal Contractor Misconduct Database
www.contractormisconduct.org...

a reply to: FosterVS

The problem I have with this is when I look up the contract number on fbo.gov, there is no associated package. The package should indicate what the contract covers.

I will FOIA this. Note all the contract losers will do the same. ;-)

2034? Seriously? A contract to cover four presidential administrations. Sounds very swampy to me.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: FosterVS

The problem I have with this is when I look up the contract number on fbo.gov, there is no associated package. The package should indicate what the contract covers.

I will FOIA this. Note all the contract losers will do the same. ;-)

2034? Seriously? A contract to cover four presidential administrations. Sounds very swampy to me.

I tried Googling the contract number, came up with this:
www.afcea.org...

This award is the result of a competitive acquisition with four offers received. Fiscal 2017 operations and maintenance funds in the amount of $2,875,894 are being obligated at the time of award. Air Force Test Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity. (FA8240-17-D-4651).

And this:
www.gosanangelo.com...

CORRECTION: The $3,600,000,000 contract to URS Federal Services Inc. (FA8240-17-D-4651) that was announced on April 6, 2017, had the wrong contract type and statement of work. The contract type is actually a cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite-delivery requirements contract. The statement of work is range support services and not remotely piloted aircraft services as stated in the announcement. All other contract information is accurate.

So this may have nothing to do with drones.

EDITED TO ADD:
There's this on fbo.gov, but no details I can see:
www.fbo.gov...

This one has me a little baffled... FA4861-17-R-B017

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: FosterVS

The problem I have with this is when I look up the contract number on fbo.gov, there is no associated package. The package should indicate what the contract covers.

I should have read your post a little closer. No package is right, so no details. Strange.

originally posted by: FosterVS

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: FosterVS

The problem I have with this is when I look up the contract number on fbo.gov, there is no associated package. The package should indicate what the contract covers.

I should have read your post a little closer. No package is right, so no details. Strange.

Note to mention this contract doesn't show up on searches of Nellis, Creech, or Tonopah. I guess I have to add Hill AFB to the search list. Not a bad idea since Hill AFB does a lot of cover for Groom Lake.

And here is the first lawsuit.

PAE isn’t about to roll over and give up on one of its largest contracts. The company has filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office after it lost the $3.6 billion Air Force Range Support Services II contract to URS Federal Services. PAE has been the incumbent on the contract since at least 2002, when DynCorp first won the contract. The contract came to PAE after it acquired the Applied Technology Division from Computer Sciences Corp. in 2013. CSC inherited the contract when it acquired DynCorp in 2003. CSC divested the bulk of DynCorp in 2005 but kept the range support work until the deal with PAE. I just love the intertwined roots of so many companies in today’s market. PAE declined to comment on the protest but obviously feel that the Air Force should have picked them over URS. It’s a lucrative contract, which Deltek estimates will be worth more than $200 million a year to the prime contractor. The contract supports the Nevada Test and Training Range including facilities at Creech Air Force Base, Leach Lake Training Range, Tonopah Test Range, and Tolicha Peak Electronic Combat Range. Services include program management, security, logistics, target operations, civil engineering, airfield operations and other support. PAE filed its protest April 17. A decision from GAO is expected by July 26. It is possible other protests could be filed. There were a total of four proposals submitted so PAE isn’t the only disappointed bidder.

washingtontechnology.com...

originally posted by: gariac
And here is the first lawsuit.

PAE isn’t about to roll over and give up on one of its largest contracts. The company has filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office after it lost the $3.6 billion Air Force Range Support Services II contract to URS Federal Services. PAE has been the incumbent on the contract since at least 2002, when DynCorp first won the contract. The contract came to PAE after it acquired the Applied Technology Division from Computer Sciences Corp. in 2013. CSC inherited the contract when it acquired DynCorp in 2003. CSC divested the bulk of DynCorp in 2005 but kept the range support work until the deal with PAE. I just love the intertwined roots of so many companies in today’s market. PAE declined to comment on the protest but obviously feel that the Air Force should have picked them over URS. It’s a lucrative contract, which Deltek estimates will be worth more than $200 million a year to the prime contractor. The contract supports the Nevada Test and Training Range including facilities at Creech Air Force Base, Leach Lake Training Range, Tonopah Test Range, and Tolicha Peak Electronic Combat Range. Services include program management, security, logistics, target operations, civil engineering, airfield operations and other support. PAE filed its protest April 17. A decision from GAO is expected by July 26. It is possible other protests could be filed. There were a total of four proposals submitted so PAE isn’t the only disappointed bidder.

washingtontechnology.com...

Someone needs to draw a map showing the "lineage" of these companies. That was hard to read, trying to figure out who is who.
EDITED TO ADD: URS apparently is now a division of AECOM, a huge conglomerate. Interesting to note, URS absorbed EG&G in 2002. They also absorbed Flint Energy Services, which is close to home for me.

I note the support services for the NTTR include "security". Me wonders if our infamous camo dudes will be URS employees.

a reply to: FosterVS

Is there strictly NTTR private security? There is private security for Groom, the TTR, and whatever the NTS is called these days. If you crossed the border at Stonewall Mountain, who would show up to defend the border?

Most of the time, the NTS, Groom and the TTR had different private security contractors.

When we were on Diablo (the barely there peak near the TTR) for the final (hah) flight of the F-117, two different security groups came to investigate. One self identified as being with the DOE and then logged all our license plates. Another showed up sort of pissed that his job was to log all our license plates, like he had better things to do. That guy never said a word.

Back in the day when they would do Capstone and Firepower near Creech (then Indian Springs), airmen would show up to talk to us, though never self identifying as security. We would park on the mesas just east of the highway. This was near Point Bravo, so more like south of Creech.

originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: FosterVS

Is there strictly NTTR private security? There is private security for Groom, the TTR, and whatever the NTS is called these days. If you crossed the border at Stonewall Mountain, who would show up to defend the border?

Most of the time, the NTS, Groom and the TTR had different private security contractors.

When we were on Diablo (the barely there peak near the TTR) for the final (hah) flight of the F-117, two different security groups came to investigate. One self identified as being with the DOE and then logged all our license plates. Another showed up sort of pissed that his job was to log all our license plates, like he had better things to do. That guy never said a word.

Back in the day when they would do Capstone and Firepower near Creech (then Indian Springs), airmen would show up to talk to us, though never self identifying as security. We would park on the mesas just east of the highway. This was near Point Bravo, so more like south of Creech.

I wonder, now that the base that didn't officially exist now semi-officially exists, they would use the same contractor for security. I can understand previously they needed security that didn't exist, for a base that didn't exist.

I suppose in some respects it makes sense to compartmentalize the security.