|

|
|
| The 'Value
Table' - 10 Leading Factors in
determining Federal/Defense company value.
|
|
|
Whether
or not you are ready to consider sale of your company,
CEOs need to understand the relative value that
prospective buyers place on your operation.
While
regulations, capital market conditions and buyer types
may change, many of these should hold over time. Keep in
mind that different buyers will weight each factor
differently. All of them pertain to the government
market.
To
test this ‘Value Table’ against market realities, we
asked PEC Solutions executive John Forbus, General
Manager, Defense Solutions, to review the list for
validity. John has been involved in several of that
company’s acquisitions.
Go
ahead, rate your company. The closer your firm scores to
100, the more likely that the business will be
positioned for sale.
Contract
Alignment with the Mission de Jour Each
era of federal contracting brings with it agency
missions or strategies that are in favor. Currently,
pursuits such as intelligence, public safety, homeland
defense technologies and information/physical security
are winners. To the extent your firm performs work in a
‘hot’ market and the work is clearly valued added from a
technical perspective to the customer, its score on the
Value Table improves.
|
FACTOR: Weak alignment
SCORE: 1 |
Strong Alignment 10
|
Cleared
Employees In
a time when secret, top secret and advanced clearances
for employees are harder to obtain and take longer to
gain, those firms with at least 60% of their technical
work force having clearances in place score
better.
|
0-20% Employees
Cleared 1 |
20-60% Cleared
|
60% or Over Cleared 10
|
Recaptured
Business Consistently
captured re-competed contracts previously held by your
firm signal strong client relations, attention to
customer needs and commitment to maintain your best
customers. Those companies deriving at least half of
their annual revenue from re-compete wins will earn
higher marks on the Table. (Caution: As Federal Growth
Report author Gary Dunbar pointed out in the April 2003
issue, over-reliance on re-compete contract wins could
also signal a reluctance to approach new
business.)
|
0-20% Recompete Revenue
1 |
20-50% Recompete
|
50% or Over
Recompete 10 |
Prime
Contract Awards Buyers
like small and mid-sized firms that own the contract,
and, preferably control the majority of spending under
it. Where the prime contract is one of a limited number
awarded under a particular GWAC vehicle (such as
Millennia Lite), buyers could look even more
favorably.
|
0-20% Prime Contract
Revenue 1 |
20-70%
Prime |
70% or Over Prime 10
|
Small
Business Set Aside (SBSA) Awards SBSA
revenue is very valuable for growing your business but
is looked at less charitably by buyers, especially given
draft federal rules which make holding on to small
business more difficult. At the time of sale, the SBSA
portion of revenue is best if less than half and going
down.
|
70-100% SBSA Revenue
1 |
20-70% SBSA
|
20% or Under SBSA 10
|
Time
in Business While
there are certainly exceptions, it takes time to build a
successful federal firm, develop and test the mettle of
a management team, create a winning culture and reach
the second generation of re-competed contracts. We
selected 10 years as the minimum number of years in
business that buyers would like to
see.
|
1-3 years in business
1 |
4-10 years
|
10 years 10
|
Contract
Concentration Having
your business concentrated in one or only a few
contracts is a double edged sword – contract
cancellation or losing the recompete could undermine
your entire business base. Buyers like concentration
within a given customer set (so there is a sufficient
foundation on which to build) but do not value the
at-risk revenue represented by one or a few
awards.
|
50%+ revenue from 1
contract 1 |
25-50% |
less than 25% 10
|
8(a)
Revenue When
used optimally, the SBA’s 8(a) program has helped launch
many companies and grown them into a thriving business
that does not depend on the preference program for its
growth. Trying to sell your firm while still holding
significant 8(a) work – especially revenue from
contracts that cannot be transferred to new ownership
upon an acquisition, can materially hold down exit value
for the seller.
|
50-100% rev. from 8(a)
1 |
15%-50% from 8(a)
|
Less than 15% from
8(a) 10 |
Competent
Management While
post-transaction situations can vary widely, generally
buyers want management either to stay as full-time
employees or stay through a transition to get the seller
acclimated to their environment. If owner-managers are
leaving on closing, then the need for strong management
below them becomes even more critical. In any event,
buyers place greater value on proven executives and
managers that grew the seller to its current state, and
have the potential to grow it more under new
ownership.
|
Lightly regarded
management 1 |
Highly regarded
management 10 |
Sustained
Revenue Growth Sustained
revenue growth by at least 15% over three straight years
can be a strong indicator of future business success.
The smaller the company, the faster the buyer would
expect the business to grow. While there are plenty of
more mature businesses with solid contract backlogs that
do not experience this growth rate (and yet have a lot
of market value), sustained, profitable growth counts
highly, especially in a federal IT sector growing at 10%
plus.
|
0-7% compounded ann. rev.
growth 1 |
8-15%
growth |
15%+ growth 10
|
|
| |
| CEO Corner - Todd
Stottlemyer, CEO, ITS Services, Inc., Springfield, Va.
|
FGR:
The founder/owners of ITS Services sold a majority stake
of their company to a private equity group, rather than
sell the entirety of the business. Why would they go
that route?
TS:
For owners who want significant liquidity but want to
retain some equity for potential upside by putting their
company in the hands of an experienced management team
backed by substantial outside capital, the private
equity model makes a lot of sense. If the only real goal
of the selling entrepreneurs is to get 100% liquidity
and the highest possible dollar value, then this route
is probably not for them. The ITS Services founders
remain as stockholders of the Company and are available
as consultants to the firm.
FGR:
Does the retention of the founder operators in the
business, whether active or passive, help in
transitioning the firm to new ownership?
TS:
Absolutely. It sends a positive message to employees to
say that the founders are still equity holders in the
firm, sharing the vision with the new owners that the
business has a lot of future growth potential and real
equity upside.
FGR:
Why do you think that the ITS transaction will be
successful?
TS:
First, we have an excellent company with a strong past
performance record of execution, poised to attack larger
prime contracts. Second, ITS Services is now a strategic
acquirer, backed by private equity capital and lenders
who are focused on and understand the federal
information technology sector. As a result, we are very
well positioned to make strategic acquisitions. Third,
we believe the new management team, including myself,
Phil Odeen, Tom Weston and Paul Leslie, all deeply
experienced in the industry, will be able to leverage
our industry and customer relationships with the
inherent value of ITS Services and build a broadly
recognized premier federal information technology
company.
FGR:
How should small to mid-sized company CEOs be viewing
the active M&A market in the federal
sector?
TS:
Both enthusiastically and realistically. Valuations are
at historic highs, which is very positive for
entrepreneurs who may have the majority of their wealth
locked in their company.
Yet,
smaller companies must be realistic and manage their
expectations. The prices being paid for larger, public
companies, such as the Veridian transaction with General
Dynamics at well over one time revenue, are not
realistic for smaller firms.
Smaller
firms need to have a true beachhead with a given
customer or customer sets to attract value. $30-$40
million revenue companies that are doing work for 10 or
more different agencies where they are spread very
broadly probably do not have deep enough penetration in
any of them to interest most
buyers.
FGR:
What type of firm is ITS Services looking to
acquire?
TS:
We intend to build on our capabilities and strengths –
enterprise architecture (where the company built the
only Level 5 GAO evaluated enterprise architecture for
an agency – U.S. Customs – being absorbed into the
Department of Homeland Security), software and systems
development, and network engineering and
operations.
Specifically,
we are looking for additional EA capabilities, a
stronger infosec and information assurance capabilities,
and defense firms providing skills in modeling and
simulation, C4ISR, logistics, training, and missile
defense.
Our
criteria for company size range extend from $30 to $125
million, with $50-$80 million being the sweet
spot.
FGR:
What are the plans for liquidity for the ITS Services
investors?
Growth
– both internal and external through acquisitions - will
give us many long-term options. These options include
recapitalizing the firm, going public if the capital
markets support the sector at that time, or selling the
firm to a strategic acquirer at some point in the
future.
^
Back to top |
|
New
Feature! FGR
is now offering analysis of recent M&A transactions
involving small- to mid-sized government services
contractors. The analysis is written by Stuart
McCutchan, president and CEO of InfoBase Publishers,
Inc.© and editor of the Defense Mergers &
Acquisitions, a premier source for information on
defense/aerospace M&A. Opinions expressed below are
those of InfoBase. All rights reserved. For more on
InfoBase Publishers' services, contact Bill Burton
(410.820.6821, wkburton@infobasepub.com)
or click http://infobasepub.com/.
Computer
Horizons Corp. Acquires RGII Technologies,
Inc.
July
9, 2003 - Computer Horizons Corp. (CHC) (NASDAQ: CHRZ)
acquired privately-held RGII Technologies, Inc.
Headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, RGII is a
solutions provider of information technology (IT) and
program management to federal, state, and local
government agencies.
Founded
in 1990, RGII claims to offer services and solutions in
such areas as enterprise management, network
infrastructure, information assurance and security, web
development and integration, program management, call
management, engineering technology and technical
services. In addition, RGII's unique proprietary
software solution, known as "Monument," addresses
Federal budget formulation processes. Supporting over 80
government customers, RGII has more than 350 employees
in regional and customer site offices across the
continental U.S., with a large percentage of its
employees holding U.S. government security clearances.
In addition, three of RGII's facilities carry either Top
Secret or Secret clearances.
The
firm has contracts with numerous Federal agencies,
including the U.S. Dept. of State, the DoD (primarily
servicing the Office of the Secretary of Defense for
Health Affairs (OSDHA) and the U.S. Navy) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
in the Dept. of Commerce. RGII derives approximately 50%
of its business from the DoD and 50% from civilian
agencies. RGII is the prime contractor on more than 50%
of its contracts. Computer Horizons president and CEO
William J. Murphy stated: "We look forward to applying
CHC's resources to help maximize RGII's potential.
Acquiring a platform company in the federal government
IT services marketplace has been a long-term priority
for CHC, and we believe RGII is an outstanding fit for
us. While most experts agree that the overall IT
Services sector continues to face sluggish growth
prospects as corporate technology budgets continue to be
squeezed and offshore outsourcing of technology jobs
continues, the Federal government IT sector remains a
very strong market.
Computer
Horizons Corp. is itself the object of a hostile
takeover offer from Aquent LLC, a privately-held global
professional services firm that has offered $5 per share
for the firm's stock in a deal worth $152 million.
Aquent issued a statement asking for further information
about the RGII deal in order to gauge the impact on its
own offer for Computer Horizons.
TERMS
The
RGII deal includes an up-front payment of approximately
$21 million and an adjustable note with a face value of
$10 million that is payable over three years. The
ultimate value of the note will be based on RGII's
performance against profitability objectives. The
acquisition is expected to be immediately accretive to
earnings for CHC.
For
calendar 2002, RGII revenues exceeded $33 million,
having grown at a compounded annual rate of 64% since
1995. RGII claims to have more than 350 employees.
H&K Strategic Business Solutions (McLean, VA)
advised RGII Technologies on the
transaction.
ANALYSIS
The
Washington Post reports that institutional shareholders
and some analysts questioned the value and timing of the
deal. They criticized the management of Computer
Horizons during a conference call for inadequately
explaining why it believes that Aquent's offer was too
low, and for attempting to separate the issues of the
RGII acquisition and the Aquent bid. One, who spoke on
the condition of anonymity, told the Post,
"They've done an acquisition that very likely destroyed
value, although it's hard to evaluate in the absence of
any detail."
Financial
analysts clearly don't care for this deal. It's
unpopular with us, too, but not for the same reasons.
RGII is simply not the company with which to start a
government IT business base. While almost all of RGII's
clients are federal, and it has experienced steady
growth since its founding in 1990 to reach $33 million
in CY02 annual revenues, the company benefited for nine
years (beginning in January 1994) from participation in
the U.S. Small Business Administration's 8(a) program
for minority- owned, small, disadvantaged
businesses.
Though
the company still qualifies as a small business in some
NAICS classifications, RGII's January 2003 graduation
from the 8(a) program means it no longer can win 8(a)
sole-source contracts, nor can it compete in
procurements limited to 8(a) firms. Data from the
Federal Procurement Data Center (FPDC) shows that about
37% of RGII's prime contract revenue is pure 8(a). When
subcontracting revenue and task orders on IDIQ, GWAC,
and GSA vehicles are factored in, however, we estimate
close to 60% of RGII's current work is in
jeopardy.
To
its credit, the company made a couple key hires in
September 2002 (Tom Eakin from Booz-Allen and ex-CSC
exec Matt Murray) to help with the transition to the
full & open marketplace. Nevertheless, RGII now must
compete for new contracts against large businesses like
SAIC, CACI, Anteon, Northrop Grumman IT, Lockheed Martin
Technology Services, etc., and established small
businesses with solid credentials in certain
niches.
Which
brings us to another sore point with Computer Horizons'
choice for entry into the government IT contracting
sphere. The types of projects RGII performs for its
federal clients are all over the map. Subsequently, the
firm lacks the depth in corporate experience (the
government calls it "past performance") needed to be a
consistent winner in tough
contests.
Some
examples of RGII's work include computer and peripheral
repair for NOAA, project management for NAVSEA, facility
operations and maintenance (O&M) for NAVAIR, call
center management for HUD, software development for the
State Dept., IV&V for the Military Health Systems,
and computer-user help desk operation for DISA. See what
we mean?
This
type of broad-but-shallow contract base comes from an
apparent lack of vision by RGII's business development
leaders. In its 13 years of existence, RGII has never
established a true niche. What type of company does it
want to be in five years? 10 years? If RGII had a
forward- looking answer to this simple question, perhaps
it would have legitimate core competencies in areas
expected to be in high demand through the end of this
decade (systems engineering and integration, information
assurance, missile defense, etc.). Instead, it’s revenue
for revenue's sake at RGII.
As
a result, we feel this company will struggle in the full
& open and small business set-aside environment, and
likely will not see much of the $10 million in future
performance incentives dangled in front of it by
Computer Horizons. Meanwhile, the acquiring company will
be forced to look elsewhere to establish a foothold (or
cut its losses altogether) in the federal IT sector.
^
Back to top |
|
A
Review of Recently Awarded Federal Contracts
New
Feature!
FGR is now offering briefs on selected services
contracts awarded by the U.S. government during the last
two months. The briefs are compiled by InfoBase
Publishers, Inc.©, a leading provider of competitive
intelligence for the worldwide defense/aerospace
industry. All rights reserved. For more on InfoBase
Publishers' services, contact Bill Burton
(410.820.6821), wkburton@infobasepub.com
or click http://infobasepub.com/.
In
Major Upset, InDyne Wins WROCI; Job Called One of the
Largest Federal IT Services Contracts Ever Awarded to a
Small Business
In
July 2003, the U.S. Air Force Space Command, 30th
Contracting Squadron (AFSPC 30 CONS) (Vandenberg AFB,
CA) awarded InDyne, Inc. (McLean, VA) an eight-year,
$429.8 million, cost-plus/incentive-fee/award-fee
contract (F04684-03-C-0050) for Western Range Operations
Communication and Information
(WROCI).
Under
the contract, the company will provide Western Range
operations and maintenance (O&M); support services;
training; command, control, communications, information
and computer (C4) systems services; testing, modifying
and installing communications, electronic and security
systems at launch facilities, launch control centers,
and test facilities.
InDyne's
only subcontractor is Northrop Grumman IT, Technical
Services (Herndon, VA). Northrop Grumman IT will be
responsible for about one-third of the contract's
740-person workforce. InDyne, which earned $69 million
in 2002, mostly from NASA contracts, said it expects to
double in size as a result of the win. According to the
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), WROCI is one
of the largest federal information technology (IT) and
communications services contracts ever awarded to a
small business.
The
contract was competitively procured through solicitation
F04684-01-R-0008, which was issued on June 21, 2002, and
called for a single award under competition limited to
small businesses only (NAICS 51331). Proposals were due
on September 17, 2002. A total of seven offers were
received. One of the losing bids was submitted by MCA
Engineers, Inc. (Oxnard, CA), which was teamed with ITT
Industries, Systems Div. (Colorado Springs, CO), a
44-year incumbent that was not permitted to bid as prime
because of the small business restriction.The
procurement is considered a follow-on effort. The
incumbent was ITT, which worked most recently under the
$307 million Range Operations and Maintenance Support
Services Contract (ROMSSC) (F04684-96-C-0038) awarded in
August 1996.
The
WROCI contract also consolidates work performed
previously under at least five other Vandenberg AFB
support services contracts, all of which are much
smaller in size and scope than ROMSSC. The incumbents on
the smaller jobs were MCA Engineers, Dynamic Concepts,
Inc. and Akima Corp.
InDyne
did not participate, either as a prime or a
subcontractor, on any of the consolidated contracts. In
fact, the company had no prior experience with 30 SW or
at Vandenberg AFB. InDyne's most relevant corporate
experience is as a subcontractor on the 10-year, $2.2
billion Joint Base Operations Support Contract (J-BOSC).
The J-BOSC prime contractor is Space Gateway Support
(SGS) (Herndon, VA), a joint venture led by none other
than Northrop Grumman IT, Technical
Services.
U.S.
Army NETCOM Selects FCBS for Enterprise- wide IT
Integration Services
In
July 2003, the U.S. Army Contracting Activity,
Information Technology, E-Commerce and Commercial
Contracting Center (ACA ITEC4) (Ft. Huachuca, NM)
awarded FC Business Systems, Inc. (FCBS) (Springfield,
VA) a $10.5 million task order on a previously awarded
GSA contract (GS-35F-4701H) to provide information
technology (IT) services support to elements of the U.S.
Army Network Enterprise Technology Command (NETCOM) 9th
Army Signal Command.
Under
the task order, the company will be responsible for
developing, implementing, and enforcing enterprise
systems management (ESM) processes and activities
required to operate and manage the transformed,
consolidated Army infostructure at the enterprise
level.
The
procurement is considered a follow-on effort. The
incumbent was L-3's Analytics Corp. subsidiary, which
has a business unit called C4I Operations Support
(Sierra Vista, AZ). FCBS said it has supported Fort
Huachuca for the past seven years, and NETCOM there for
more than four years. The firm's Sierra Vista office has
grown steadily from 32 to more than 120
employees.
NUWC
Selects AMA to Support Financial Management, Workforce
Effectiveness Departments
In
July 2003, the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center Div.
Newport (NUWC) (Newport, RI) awarded Aquidneck
Management Associates, Ltd. (AMA) (Newport, RI) a
five-year, $15.7 million, cost-plus-award-fee (term)
contract (N66604-03-C-0665) for administrative and
technical support for the NUWC's Financial Management
Dept., Workforce Effectiveness Dept., and Supply
Management Office.
Under
the contract, the company will perform on- site support
for computer systems, computer programs, and
data-processing facilities in the departments. The work
includes 15 separate tasks. The task for the Workforce
Effectiveness Dept. includes program development and
maintenance, and personnel department administrative and
operations support. The work is expected to be completed
by August 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the
end of the current fiscal year.
The
contract was competitively procured through solicitation
N66604-03-R-0665, which was issued on January 29, 2003,
and limited competition to small businesses only (NAICS
541513). A total of seven offers were
received.
What
Goes Around, Comes Around AEDC
Awards Jacobs-led Joint Venture $2.7B Contract to Run
Center
In
June, 2003, the U.S. Air Force Arnold Engineering
Development Center (AEDC) (Arnold AFB, TN) awarded
Aerospace Testing Alliance (ATA) (Tullahoma, TN) a
12-year, $2.69 billion, cost-plus-award-fee contract
(F40600-03-C-0001) for the operation, maintenance,
information management, and support of AEDC, the most
advanced and largest complex of flight simulation test
facilities in the world.
ATA
is a three-way joint venture led by managing partner
Jacobs Sverdrup (Tullahoma, TN). The other two firms in
the joint venture are CSC Federal Sector, Defense Group,
Aerospace unit (Falls Church, VA), and General Physics
Corp. (Columbia, MD).
The
contract was competitively procured through solicitation
F40600-03-R-0001, which was issued on January 6, 2003,
and called for a single award under full & open
competition With the decision to consolidate these two
contracts, the Air Force has come full circle. For 28
years, beginning in 1950, AEDC had only one contractor,
ARO, Inc. (now Jacobs Sverdrup), which got several
consecutive sole-source contracts. According to Air
Force procurement officials, the company's long tenure
created some negative effects on the program, so, for
FY78-80 support, AEDC decided to compete the contract
under full & open competition. Only one other bid
was received, however, which was graded unsatisfactory,
and the contract was again awarded to the then-
ARO.
In
an effort to stimulate competition, the Air Force split
the work into three separate contracts for FY81-85. This
approach worked. ARO won the propulsion testing portion,
Calspan Corp. (now part of Veridian) won the flight
dynamics testing contract, and Pan Am World Services won
the O&M work.
For
FY86-95, the government stayed with the three contracts,
but in only one of six competitions during that time did
the incumbent lose (SSI Services beat Pan Am in the 1985
O&M recompete). In the FY96-00 competition, AEDC
left the O&M contract alone (won by ACS), but
bundled the two test contracts into one (won by
Sverdrup) to eliminate technical and administrative
redundancies and achieve cost
savings.
Now,
the Air Force has decided to return to the days of a
single AEDC contract. Procurement officials say the
abandoned multiple- contract approach did produce some
benefits, but, in the end, the government believes it
will be better off with a single contract. The key, they
say, is full & open competition to stave off
contractor complacency.
Incumbent
EMA and Subcontractor Jahn Corp. Flip-Flop Roles to Win
NAWCAD SBSA for V-22 Support
In
June 2003, the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center - Aircraft
Div. (NAWCAD) (Patuxent River, MD) awarded Jahn Corp.
(Lexington Park, MD) a five-year, $34 million, IDIQ
contract (N00421-03-D-0045) to provide professional
administrative and management support services for the
V-22 Joint Program Office integrated process teams
(IPTs) and field activities.
The
procurement is considered a follow-on effort. The
incumbent was EMA, which performed much of the work
previously under a blanket purchase agreement (BPA)
(N00421-97-A-1443) awarded in FY97. Jahn Corp. was a
subcontractor to EMA. Since EMA has outgrown its small
business status, EMA and Jahn chose to reverse
roles.
Under
the contract, which has an estimated level of effort
(LOE) of 63,850 labor-hours per year, the company will
perform work that includes support for V-22 Osprey
(tilt-rotor) aircraft weapon systems program
management/administrative support and
resources/operations areas; development/production
analyses and technical services in the area of V-22
testing for all V- 22 functional areas and V-22 variant
aircraft; and independent analyses, technical studies
and management services for the V-22 weapons systems
program.
Jahn’s
subcontractors are:
- Eagan,
McAllister Associates, Inc. (EMA) (Lexington Park, MD)
- Veridian
Engineering Div., Aeronautics Sector (Lexington Park,
MD)
- Titan
Corp., probably the Aviation Engineering Group,
Aviation Integration Div. (Mount Laurel, NJ).
Protest
Pays Off; AFOTEC Adds MacB to General Operations Support
(GOS) Winners
In
June 2003, the U.S. Air Force Operational Test and
Evaluation Center (AFOTEC) (Kirtland AFB, NM) awarded
MacAulay-Brown, Inc. (MacB) (Dayton, OH) a five-year,
$16 million, IDIQ contract (FA7046-03-D-0004) to provide
operational, test, and evaluation (OT&E) support for
AFOTEC headquarters, detachments, and operating
locations under AFOTEC's General Operations Support
(GOS) program.
The
contract award resulted from a MacB protest of AFOTEC's
original GOS procurement. In October 2002, AFOTEC
awarded two GOS contracts, one each to Cirrus
Technology, Inc. (Huntsville, AL), a HubZone company,
and ASRC Communications, Ltd. (Anchorage, AL), a small
business. Having been left out of the winners' circle,
MacB protested the evaluation process, and the
government ruled AFOTEC must take corrective action.
AFOTEC subsequently re-evaluated the MacB bid, which
brought it into the competitve range. At that point,
AFOTEC chose to award another GOS contract to MacB,
while keeping the other two contractors in
place.
Under
the multiple-award program, the three companies now will
compete for task orders to support the administration,
planning, and conducting of OT&E activities. MacB
was acquired in December 2001 by privately-held The
Sytex Group, Inc. (TSGI) (Doylestown, PA). At the time
of its acquisition, MacB was generating slightly more
than $35 million in annual revenues with 350
employees.
In
8(a) Set-Aside, AFRL Inks ZelTech to Implement A2IPB at
50 Air Operations Centers
In
June 2003, the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome
Research Site (AFRL RRS) (Rome, NY) awarded Zel
Technologies, LLC (ZelTech) (Hampton, VA) a five-year,
$24.9 million, IDIQ contract (F30602-03-D-0100) to
implement the Automated Assumption with Intelligence
Preparation of the Battlespace (A2IPB) program.
Under
the contract, the company will develop and enhance the
A2IPB baseline to interface and interoperate with target
development systems, intelligence surveillance
reconnaissance (ISR) management and employment systems,
fusion systems, intelligence and command and control
(C2) databases, and effects-based operations
systems.
A2IPB
will be fielded to all USAF air operations centers.
Installations planned are nearing 50 in number. Further,
A2IPB is being readied for use by the intelligence
community in DODIIS environment. The contract was issued
on March 18, 2003, and limited competition to 8(a) firms
only (NAICS 541710). The contract is considered a
follow-on effort. The incumbent was ZelTech, which
developed A2IPB software under a contract awarded in
2001.
Caelum
Gains White Sands Operations Contract
On
June 3, 2003, the U.S. Army Contacting Activity (ACA),
White Sands Missile Range awarded Caelum Research Corp.
(Rockville, MD) a 15-year, $65.3 million,
firm-fixed-price, level-of-effort (LOE) contract
(DABK39-03-C-0053) to provide Information Systems
Operations and Support Services
(ISOSS).
Under
the contract, the primary information technology (IT)
for WSMR employees, the company will supply a team of
about 70 people to operate the computer systems,
including input/output control, magnetic tape and
optical media libraries, magnetic tape maintenance
facilities, system accounting and file
management.
For
WSMR, the company will perform automated data processing
equipment (ADPE) operations, help desk, data processing
services, software development, and software maintenance
services. For the National Range, Caelum will perform
real-time operations, business computer operations,
network support, telecommunications center operations,
and real-time operations control systems (ROCS). For the
U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) the company will
perform computer operations and computer system
operations. For the U.S. Army TRADOC Analysis Center -
WSMR (TARC-WSMR), Caelum will operate the TARC-WSMR
computer systems and provide network operations support
functions for associated LAN systems and their
associated equipment computer
operations.
Caelum’s
only known subcontractor is Pyramid Services, Inc.
(Alamogordo, NM), dba Univeral Systems & Technology,
Inc. (UniTEC) (Fairfax, VA). The contract, which begins
September 1, 2003, contains a one-year base (worth $4.3
million), two one-year options, and 12 one-year
award-terms that, if earned, could increase its
cumulative value to $65.3 million and extend the period
of performance through August 31,
2018.
The
contract was competitively procured through solicitation
DABJ47-ISOSS, which was issued on February 27, 2003, and
called for a single award under competition among small
businesses only (NAICS 541513).
The
procurement is considered a follow-on effort. The
incumbent was UniTEC, which worked under a five-year,
$17.7 million contract (DAAD07-98-C-0107) awarded in
FY98. In fact, UniTEC was founded in 1991 for the
purpose of competing for the ISOSS contract. UniTEC has
maintained the contract since that time, but could not
bid as prime on this recompete, as it no longer
qualifies as a small business within the procurement's
assigned NAICS.
"UniTEC
is pleased to have the opportunity to continue providing
outstanding services to our White Sands customer," said
Laura Bregler, president and CEO of Pyramid Services.
"Pyramid Services is excited about its partnership with
Caelum Research Corp. and the opportunities to further
the great mission of WSMR."
|
|
Selected
Defense/Government Technology M&A
Transactions |
|
Closing
or Announcement Date |
Buyer |
Seller |
Purchase Price |
Seller Revenue |
Enterprise Value/Revenue |
|
August
5, 2003 |
Tetra
Tech |
Engineering
Management Concepts (EMC) |
|
$40m |
|
|
July
30, 2003 |
FC
Business Systems |
Amerind,
Inc. |
|
$20m
|
|
|
July
30, 2003 |
General
Dynamics |
Digital
Systems Resources, Inc. |
|
$100m |
|
|
July
17, 2003 |
Innovative
Technology Application,
Inc. |
IT
Specialists, Inc. |
N/D |
N/D |
|
|
July
15, 2003 |
American
Management Systems, Inc. |
Vredenburg |
$45.7m |
$58m |
79% |
|
July
9, 2003 |
Computer
Horizons |
RGII
Technologies |
$21m
(+$10m earnout) |
$33m |
64% |
|
July
2, 2003 |
Management |
McDonald
Bradley, Inc. |
N/D |
$20m |
|
|
June
12, 2003 |
L-3
Communications |
Aeromet,
Inc. |
$20m |
$30m |
66% |
|
June
10, 2003 |
GovOne |
Frank
Solutions |
N/D |
48
employees |
|
|
June
9, 2003 |
General
Dynamics |
Verdian |
$1.5
Bn |
$1.2Bn |
125% |
|
May
30, 2003 |
Innovation
Technology Application,
Inc. |
DKCS,
Inc. |
N/D |
N/D |
|
|
May
29, 2003 |
SCB
Computer Technology, Inc. (SCBI) |
National
Systems & Research Co. |
N/D |
$28m |
|
^ Back to
top |
|
g
Value
Alignment - The High Performance Foundation for Effective
Strategy Execution
Imagine
a government professional services provider where every
function, every operation, every executive, manager and
employee totally perform in complete alignment with the firm’s
strategy for delivering value to customers. Or picture a
defense equipment manufacturer that is totally synchronized
and behaves, operates, and functions at an optimum level to
execute the firm’s business strategy.
Firms
like this, or very nearly like it, exist. They are the leaders
in their industries. In consumer products they are the well-
known brand names that have consistently grown and profited.
Given the thousands of firms in the world, these leaders are
somewhat rare.
In
the federal technology marketplace, leaders exist as well,
though leadership comes in its own distinct form. A larger,
government contractor ‘brand’ may focus on intelligence and
security missions, reinforced operationally by aligned
acquisitions, high-end strategic work, senior executives
formerly employed at relevant government agencies and growing
customer presence at agencies such as NRO, CIA and DISA.
For
smaller federal firms, that brand could mean meaningful market
share in a given geographic market, such as at a particular
Army R&D laboratory, reinforced operationally by
leadership that had spent their career at that facility,
technologists who further the major missions supported by that
facility and national policy presence in advancement of
relevant missions.
Execution
is the issue
The
problem is not that companies who perform at lesser levels do
not want to join the leadership ranks – most do. The problem
is how to do it. Company leadership teams create strategy and
take actions to be sure everyone understands the strategy.
Often, at year-end, achievements fail to meet goals. The
problem is execution – not the strategy. This is not unusual –
in fact, it is commonplace.
“Flawed
strategy is seldom the sin of these failed CEO’s. In the
majority of cases - estimated 70% - the real problem isn’t the
high-concept boners. It’s bad execution.” “Why CEO’s
Fail” Fortune, June 21,
1999.
The
heart of the problem is that company leadership has only their
personal judgment and experience to help them analyze what
went wrong. Sometimes they isolate and fix the real problem
but often, their corrective efforts are misdirected or
ineffective.
Value
Alignment (VA)
diagnostics changes things. With VA, a CEO in virtually any
industry can now rapidly review the entire operations and
identify elements that are, or are not, operating in alignment
with the firm value delivery strategy. Note that the focus
is on actually operating in alignment with strategy and not on
merely saying that operations are aligned with strategy. This
gives the CEO the power to get all the cars in the train on
the same track and heading in the same direction. With all
elements of the firm operating in support of the strategy for
delivering value to customers, the leadership team can focus
on improving performance and actually achieving consistent,
long-term revenue growth.
|
VA
Applications VA is
most effective when applied in three consecutive steps:
Leadership, Executives, and Management.
Step One:
Leadership VA The
CEO (or Strategic Business Unit Leader) and no more than
two additional leaders (COO and CFO typically) complete
a questionnaire defining strategy category and
characteristics. Questionnaire responses are evaluated;
the VA consultants provide a summary report.
Step Two:
Executives VA Six
to eight executives (or, typically other than the CEO,
COO and CFO) meet with the VA consultant and develop an
understanding of strategic category. They eachcomplete a
questionnaire. The VA consultants evaluate questionnaire
responses and report findings, including indicators of
elements aligned, or not aligned, with value delivery
strategy.
Step
Three: Management VA A
group of 18 to 25 managers (or smaller number depending
on company size) meet with the VA consultant and develop
an understanding of strategic categories. They, too,
complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire responses
are evaluated and findings are reported, including
indicators of elements aligned, or not aligned, with
value delivery strategy. |
What
is VA? VA
is new – very new. Valerie Kijewski, Ph.D. and Norma C.
Powell, Ph.D., professors at the University of Massachusetts
Lowell College of Management and founders of Business
Genetics, developed it. Validation testing was completed in
June this year. VA builds on the work of Treacy and Wiersema
identifying and defining the three basic categories of
strategy for delivering value to customers. Simply put, there
are three value delivery strategies: PRODUCT, SOLUTION, and
COST. Optimum performance is achieved when a firm delivers
unmatched value in one of these three while meeting threshold
standards in the other two.
Kijewski
and Powell took these three value strategy definitions and
identified operational characteristics for each. These
operation characteristics, or discriminators, are used to
construct data collection and analysis tools. These tools may
now be used to rapidly review a firm’s operations and identify
elements that are, or are not, operating in alignment with the
firm’s strategy.
VA
is the starting point for improving performance. It is the
diagnosis of the situation, not the prescription for cure. For
many business leaders, knowledge of the problems rapidly leads
to effective corrective actions. More complex or subtle
problems may require deeper investigation to identify the
effective corrective action.
What
does Value Alignment mean?
Look
at your own company’s decisions regarding investments. It is
likely that your investment decisions tend to fall into one of
the three categories below more often than
not.
Investment
categories Investment
decisions are based on the contribution
to:
1.
company cost and efficiency 2. technological
advantage 3. customer satisfaction.
If
you selected category #1 as the most pervasive basis for
investment decisions in your company it indicates that you are
following a COST value delivery strategy. The second category
indicates a PRODUCT value delivery strategy and the third, a
SOLUTION value delivery strategy.
Organizational
Categories Internal
structure is organized around:
1.
business processes 2. product or technology 3. customers
or markets
If
you again selected #1 we would observe that your investment
decisions and your organizational structure are aligned for
value delivery strategy. If you selected the second or the
third our conclusion would be that these elements are not
aligned and may be in conflict, hurting your firm’s
performance, and diminishing your ability to grow
revenue.
In
conducting a Value Alignment diagnostic exercise, we review
over a hundred such questions and look for alignment matches,
or mismatches, in a broad spectrum of a firm’s
operations.
Implementing
VA In
practice, VA is applied in three steps: Leadership, Executive,
and Management. These steps start at the top, understanding if
the firm’s leaders share the same strategic view. Steps two
and three move sequentially to lower levels, deepening the
analysis, finding indicators of alignment, or lack of
alignment, and spreading the alignment concepts. At the end of
the process, all three levels of management are focused on
those elements most in need of alignment correction and share
a common definition of that needed to bring the organization
into full alignment with value strategy. The inset outlines
the three steps.
VA
works for strategic business units as well as independent
firms. In general, the size of the firm or business unit ought
to generally fit the Leadership/Executive/Management
parameters described in the inset. The process is modified as
appropriate for organizations that do not fit this
model.
Market
leadership CEOs
now have more power and capability to turn strategic visions
into reality. VA gives them the tools to improve and align
their operations with their value delivery strategy and become
a leader in the company’s chosen market
segment.

More
information VA is being introduced publicly by Gary
A, Dunbar, Inc., a business development consulting firm
specializing in helping federal technology providers and firms
in other industries create consistent, long-term revenue
growth. For additional information, contact Gary Dunbar at gary@garydunbar.com. or
see http://www.garydunbar.com/
Minuteman
Ventures does two things.
We help small and mid-sized company owners sell their
businesses, and we help corporate and private equity buyers
acquire strategically aligned companies.
We specialize
in companies that sell services and products to federal
government agencies and the Department of Defense.
|