Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
U.S. Department of Defense Contract Spending and the Supporting Industrial Base
An Annotated Brief by the CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group
PROJECT DIRECTORS
Ryan Crotty Elena Derby Joachim Ho auer Gregory Kiley Roy Levy Nicholas Lombardo Cornelia Moore
May 2011
U.S. Department of Defense Contract Spending and the Supporting Industrial Base
An Annotated Brief
PROJECT DIRECTORS David Berteau Guy Ben-Ari AUTHORS Jesse Ellman Reed Livergood David Morrow Gregory Sanders CONTRIBUTORS Ryan Crotty Elena Derby Joachim Hofbauer Gregory Kiley Roy Levy Nicholas Lombardo Cornelia Moore May 2011
Table of Contents
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5 Overall DoD Contract Spending ........................................................................................... 6 Contract Spending by DoD Component ............................................................................. 11 DoD Contract Characteristics ............................................................................................. 24 The Industrial Base Supporting DoD .................................................................................. 27 Summary ............................................................................................................................. 35
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Top Line DoD Contract Spending, 1990-2010 ............................................................ 6 Figure 2-2. DoD Contract Spending for Products, 1990-2010 ....................................................... 7 Figure 2-3. DoD Contract Spending for Services, 1990-2010 ........................................................ 8 Figure 2-4. DoD Contract Spending for R&D, 1990-2010............................................................. 9 Figure 2-5. DoD Contract Spending by Category in Percentage Terms, 1990-2010.................... 10 Figure 3-1. DoD Contract Spending by Component, 1990-2010 ................................................. 11 Figure 3-2. DoD Contract Spending on Products by Component, 1990-2010 ............................. 12 Figure 3-3. DoD Contract Spending on Services by Component, 1990-2010 .............................. 13 Figure 3-4. DoD Contract Spending on R&D by Component, 1990-2010 ................................... 14 Figure 3-5. Army Contract Spending, 1990-2010 ........................................................................ 15 Figure 3-6. Navy Contract Spending, 1990-2010 ......................................................................... 16 Figure 3-7. Air Force Contract Spending, 1990-2010 .................................................................. 17 Figure 3-8. Other DoD Components Contract Spending, 1990-2010 ........................................... 18 Figure 3-9. Share of DoD Contract Spending by Component, 1990-2010 ................................... 19 Figure 3-10. Army Contract Spending by Category, 1990-2010 .................................................. 20 Figure 3-11. Navy Contract Spending by Category, 1990-2010 .................................................. 21 Figure 3-12. Air Force Contract Spending by Category, 1990-2010 ............................................ 22 Figure 3-13. Other DoD Contract Spending by Category, 1990-2010 ......................................... 23 Figure 4-1. Defense Contract Spending by Competition, 1999-2010 ........................................... 24 Figure 4-2. Defense Contract Spending by Funding Mechanism, 1999-2010 .............................. 25 Figure 4-3. Defense Contract Spending by Contract Vehicle, 1999-2010.................................... 26 Figure 5-1. DoD Contract Spending by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009..................................... 31 Figure 5-2. DoD Contract Spending for Products by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009 ................ 32 Figure 5-3. DoD Contract Spending for Services by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009 ................ 33 Figure 5-4. DoD Contract Spending for R&D by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009 ..................... 34
List of Tables
Table 5-1. Table 5-2. Table 5-3. Table 5-4. Top 20 DoD Contractors, 1999 and 2009.................................................................... 27 Top 20 DoD Contractors for Products, 1999 and 2009 ............................................... 28 Top 20 DoD Contractors for Services, 1999 and 2009 ............................................... 29 Top 20 DoD Contractors for R&D, 1999 and 2009 ................................................... 30
1. Introduction
This report analyzes contracting for products, services, and research and development (R&D) by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) overall and by its key components. It thereby seeks to provide an in-depth look at the trends currently driving more than 60 percent of all federal contract dollars and more than half of all federal contract actions. The report also presents findings on various elements of the industrial base supporting DoD in its missions. Amongst other issues, the report discusses implications for competition in providing defense products and services as well as for near-term spending by the individual military departments. For this report, the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group (DIIG) at CSIS uses the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) as its primary source of data on government contract spending. Note that since FPDS data are constantly being updated, including for back years, dollar totals for any given year can vary between charts from one report to the next. However, this difference is never greater than $10 billion from year to year. The report also employs the Department of Defense Form 350 (DD350) data for earlier years. The DD350 data have been incorporated into FPDS, but raw data for years prior to 2004 are only publicly available from the DD350s. For this report, all dollar figures are expressed in constant Fiscal Year 2010 dollars. The timeframe analyzed in this report extends from 1990 to 2010. Additional depth of analysis is provided for the period 1999-2010 on contract spending by funding mechanism, contract vehicle, and Top 20 Contractors (1999 was selected as the starting point for these last three categories of analysis to capture contract spending on preparations for Y2K). This report opens by presenting an overview of defense contract spending, then divides the data into three categories: products, services, and R&D. (Note that these categories were derived from the official Product and Service Codes and do not necessarily match DoD appropriations. In addition, FPDS includes R&D as spending on services, but this report provides separate totals and analysis for R&D.) Next, the report presents data on contract spending by the three military departments. In addition, the report includes a category called Other DoD, consisting of defense agencies and other entities within DoD (such as the Defense Logistics Agency, Missile Defense Agency, Defense Threat Reduction Agency, etc.). The report then analyzes trends by three key contract characteristics: level of competition, type of funding mechanism, and type of contract vehicle. Lastly, the report analyzes the industrial base supporting DoD. It examines the Top 20 contractors for 1999 and for 2009. Further detail is given via a Top 20 contractors list based solely on contracts for products, services and R&D. To show the larger picture, for 1999 and 2009 contract awards are broken down into three contractor size categories. For these looks at contractors, 2009 data are used for reliability and availability reasons. Due to the fact that it relies almost exclusively on FPDS data, the analysis presented in this report incurs five notable restrictions. First, contracts awarded as part of supplemental packages are not separately classified in FPDS or this report. As a result, we do not distinguish between contracts funded by the DoD base budget and those funded by supplemental appropriations. Secondly, our analysis only covers contracts funded by and contracted through DoD. (In 2010, there were $4.7 billion worth of contract dollars funded by DoD and contracted through other agencies; almost 80 percent of these were contracted through GSA.) Third, FPDS includes only prime contracts, and there is, as of yet, no publicly available data to distinguish subcontracts as a separate category. Therefore, only prime contract data are included in this report. Fourth, reporting regulations only require that unclassified contracts be included in FPDS. We interpret this to mean that few, if any, classified contracts are in the data base. For DoD, this omits a substantial amount of total contract spending, perhaps as much as 10 per cent. Such omissions are probably most noticeable in R&D contracts. Finally, it should be noted that classifications of contracts differs between FPDS and individual companies. For example, some contracts that a company may consider as services are labeled as products in FPDS, and vice versa. This may cause some discrepancies between companies reports and those of the federal government.
499 446 457 456 421 396 400 373 354 356 338 340 334 334 352
195
179 241 198 180 185 181 178 185
40% 30%
20%
235 206
287 295
281 254
158 163 140 142 132 156 158 155 153 157 166 177
205
250 264
300 319
10%
0% '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Fiscal Year
DoD Contract Spending (4.3% 21-year CAGR) Contracts as a percent of DoD Outlays
Disclaimer: This chart was originally printed with an error resulting in a higher percentage line. This error has been corrected. Note: Dollar figures may not sum to total due to rounding. Source: DD350 and FPDS; CSIS analysis
1
Note that in 1991 (following the Persian Gulf War), the report counts only gross spending, rather than the smaller net spending number that is offset by foreign receipts.
$600
604
640
60%
50%
% of DoD Contract Spending
$300
Constant 2010 Billions
30%
10%
86
87
69
69
60
67
69
65
62
65
76
79
91
$0 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Products (3.3% 21-year CAGR) % Products
0%
60%
$300
Constant 2010 Billions
40%
$250
$200 $150
150
30%
161 161
20%
$100 $50
49 62
126 140
67
71
82
10%
54
50
51
53
$0 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Services (6.1% 21-year CAGR) % Services
0%
60%
50%
30%
$0
23
21
22
22
19
27
26
26
23
25
44
42
43
41
0%
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year R&D (3.0% 21-year CAGR) % R&D
Todd Harrison. Classified Funding in the FY 2010 Defense Budget Request. Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. August 12, 2009. http://www.csbaonline.org/publications/2009/08/classified-funding-inthe-fy-2010-defense-budget-request/.
$300
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year
% Products % R&D % Services
10
74
$300
$250
42
59 45 61 35 20 43 58 36 24
49
65 73 67 88
64
67
65
20 37 49 34
20 40
47 34
21 50 49
39
19
20 43 49
40
22 42 50 42
23
26 49
51 56
65
62 72
80
98
95
88
49 52
35
49
47
47
50
38 43 31
66
69 129
57 55 75 86 105 106
52
37
154
146
140
41
46
49
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Fiscal Year Army (7.0% 21-year CAGR) Air Force (2.0% 21-year CAGR) Navy (2.1% 21-year CAGR) Other DOD (6.7% 21-year CAGR)
11
$180 $160
37
43
45
$140
41
26 37 23 14 21 17
26 19 25
42
32 28 42 52
25
25
24 11 16
31
12 19 24 14 12 19
11 22 23 12
12 24 19
14
14
15 23
22
30 28 28
29 31
32 36
45
42
12 20 20 14
11
11
17 22 15
22 24 17
17 20 13
27
26 15
23 46 20
29
75 31
44
57
60
57
18 10
19
$0
'90 '91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Fiscal Year Army Products (5.7% 21-year CAGR) Air Force Products (0.7% 21-year CAGR) Navy Products (1.5% 21-year CAGR) Other DOD Products (5.5% 21-year CAGR)
12
$140
19
26
22
$120
18
29 26 36 33
20 29 28 31
27
15 12 5 15 19 15 7 7 13 17 13 6 12 17 15 6 13
19
15 23 26 26 26
34
25 27
8 15 22 18
16
22
6 15
21
7 15
20
8 15
22
6 16
21
16 22 24
18 24
28
28
15
17
20
21
22
23
37
46
50
50
62
69
75
74
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Fiscal Year
Army Services (9.1% 21-year CAGR) Air Force Services (3.8% 21-year CAGR)
Navy Services (2.8% 21-year CAGR) Other DOD Services (9.5% 21-year CAGR)
13
$0
2 9 5 5
2 8 6 6
2 9 6 5
1 7 6 5
2 11 8 7
1 10 8 6
1 15 6 6
2 10 8 6
2 10 6 5
3 9 6 5
3 10 7 6
4 10 10 7
4 10 12 8
4 11 12 9
5 11 15 9
4 11 16
6 12 16 11
6 12
13
6 14 13 10
6 13 12 9
11
11
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Fiscal Year Army R&D (3.4% 21-year CAGR) Air Force R&D (1.9% 21-year CAGR) Navy R&D (2.7% 21-year CAGR) Other DOD R&D (6.5% 21-year CAGR)
Ibid.
14
37
$0
34
34
31
35
39
41
40
42
46
49
55
75
86
5%
0%
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Army (7.0% 21-year CAGR) % Army of total DoD contract spending
15
49
47
43
52
49
47
49
50
50
51
57
66
69
72
80
88
98
95
88
$0 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Navy (2.1% 21-year CAGR) % Navy of total DoD contract spending
0%
16
Air Force contract spending has historically included a disproportionate share of overall DoD classified contracts, largely because of the use of Air Force entities for such work.
Classified projects explain a substantial portion of the Air Forces relative decline. In absolute terms, the Air Force was responsible for 95 percent of the $18 billion in DoD classified procurement account projects in 2010. As was earlier noted, classified spending has gone from 36 percent of the Air Force RDT&E budget in 1999 to 45 percent in 2009.4 As a result, the chart below probably understates Air
Force contract spending and that understatement may be increasing over time.
Figure 3-7. Air Force Contract Spending, 1990-2010
$450 $400 $350
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
5%
49
50
49
43
42
47
49
56
65
62
61
67
73
64
67
65 0%
$0 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Air Force (2.0% 21-year CAGR) % Air Force of total DoD contract spending
Ibid.
17
24
20
20
20
19
21
19
20
22
23
26
35
42
45
59
65
62
71
72
74
0%
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Other DOD (6.7% 21-year CAGR) % Other DoD
18
35%
30%
5% 0%
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Fiscal Year
% Army of total DoD contract spending
% Air Force of total DoD contract spending
19
$140
Constant 2010 Billions
10 11 69
9 9
50 46
11 62 50
75
74
$60 $40
5 6
20
6
13
5 15
$20 $0
13
15
7 17
6
18
6
21
5 22
5 23
6
24
7
28
37
75 46 44 57 60 57 29 31
15
19
17
15
14
10
12
14
14
13
15
17
19
20
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Army Products (5.7% 21-year CAGR) Army Services (9.1% 21-year CAGR) Army R&D (3.4% 21-year CAGR)
Note: The unlabelled category, which totals less than 1 billion a year, was excluded from the figure. Source: DD350 and FPDS; CSIS analysis
20
$120 $100
13
13
$80
16
16 12 26 15 31 28 26 33 36
12
$60
7
5
12 19 6 17 6
17 8
34
$40 $20 $0
19
6 22 19
8
22
6 21
8 20
6
22
6
21
7 22
10 27
24
31
27
26
24
18
23
19
20
20
22
24
22
23
28
32
31
36
42
52
45
42
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Navy Products (1.5% 21-year CAGR) Navy Services (2.8% 21-year CAGR) Navy R&D (2.7% 21-year CAGR)
Note: The unlabelled category, which totals less than 1 billion a year, was excluded from the figure. Source: DD350 and FPDS; CSIS analysis
21
Constant 2010Billions
$120 $100
$80
$60
10
10 9 9 13 15 8 13 9
13 7 11
11 23
11
12
11 26
28
12 29 26
14
13
$40
$20
10 16
15 15
10
16
10 18 16
10 16 15
25
29
27
13
16
22
26
16
19
19
22
24
20
18
17
22
24
29
30
29
24
28
32
26
25
25
$0
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Fiscal Year Air Force Products (0.7% 21-year CAGR) Air Force Services (4.1% 21-year CAGR) Air Force R&D (1.9% 21-year CAGR)
Note: The unlabelled category, which totals less than 1 billion a year, was excluded from the figure. Source: DD350 and FPDS; CSIS analysis
Ibid.
22
5
18
4
20
22
19
1 8
1 6
2 7
2 8
3 6
3 8
4 12
15
15
14
17
11
12
12
11
12
12
11
11
14
15
19
23
25
37
41
37
43
45
42
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 Fiscal Year Other DOD Products (5.5% 21-year CAGR) Other DOD Services (9.5% 21-year CAGR) Other DOD R&D (6.5% 21-year CAGR)
Note: The unlabelled category, which totals less than 1 billion a year, was excluded from the figure. Source: DD350 and FPDS; CSIS analysis
23
Unlabelled (-15.1%)
$300
13
4
131 120
146
134
130
$250 $200
8
13 110 11
103
No Competition (7.9%)
55 54 53
46 34 38
9 81
103
$150
20
66
71
15
19
22
188
$100 $50
61 10
8
15 98 115
126
180
152
67
83
83
Competition with multiple offers (10.4%) '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Barack Obama, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies. Subject: Government Contracting, White House, Washington DC, 2009.
24
45 16
Unlabelled (-29.0%) Combination (n/a) Time And Materials (9.3%) Cost Reimbursement (7.3%) Fixed Price (10.1%)
8 13 11 10 8 6
53
15
93
104 91
11 11
83
1
87
93 98
10 7 0
58
0 71
7 6
52
8 7
51
214
227
241
$50 $0
92
100
111
130
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Note: The other category, which totals less than 20 million a year, was excluded from the figure. Source: DD350 and FPDS; CSIS analysis
Ibid.
25
Defense Contract Spending by Contract Vehicle, 1999-2010 In Figure 4-3 below, total DoD contract spending is broken out by contract vehicles. The Indefinite
Delivery Vehicles (IDV) category is further broken out into Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), Multiple Award Independent Delivery Contracts (IDCs) and Single Award IDCs. Purchase Orders and Definitive Contracts form separate categories. The data reveal that DoD has awarded contracts using primarily the definitive contract and single award IDC vehicles. However, the growth of all indefinite delivery vehicles combined outpaced that in the definitive contract categories, driven by single award contracts.
Figure 4-3. Defense Contract Spending by Contract Vehicle, 1999-2010
$450 $400 $350
14
14
11 12 37 45
11 11 51 56
Contract Vehicle Category (11-year CAGR) FSS or other (6.9%) Multiple Award IDC (18.3%) Single Award IDC (12.8%) Purchase Order (13.7%)
$300
13
33
12 22 10 6 13 45 3 99 3 102 7 14 50
4 116
146 135
26
119
17 58
79
90 6 7 9 9 10
10
131
128
136
144
155
171
172
154
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
Fiscal Year
Note: The unlabelled IDV category, which totals less than 3 billion a year, was excluded from the figure. Source: DD350 and FPDS; CSIS analysis
26
27
28
29
*Joint Venture Source: 1999 data generated using the DD350 contracts database; 2009 data are from https://www.FPDS.gov.
30
73.6 205.7
56.3 110.9
26.7 66.8
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
31
DoD Contract Spending for Products by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009
The distribution of DoD contract dollars across defense product providers in 1999 and 2009 is illustrated in Figure 5-2 This is a subset of the data presented in the previous Figure 5-1. Contractors are classified by the same conventions as the previous figure. The squeeze in mid-sized contractors is seen particularly clearly in contract awards for products. Compared to large and small contractors, which averaged a respective 11 and 12 percent annual growth over 11 years, medium-sized contractors grew by a smaller, but still healthy, 8 percent CAGR.
Figure 5-2. DoD Contract Spending for Products by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009
Contractor Size Category (11-year CAGR) Large Contractors [$3B+] (11.4%)
37.2 109.1
20.0 43.7
8.1 24.3
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
1999 Products
2009 Products
32
DoD Contract Spending for Services by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009
Figure 5-3. presents the change in distribution of service-providing defense contractors by size between 1999 and 2009, using the same conventions as the previous two figures. In services, the squeeze on mid-sized contractors is less apparent, though these firms lost their lead in the market to large-sized firms. In 2009, mid-sized contractors held almost as large a share of the market as did large contractors ($60 billion versus $65 billion, respectively). However, they still held a smaller share of the overall market share than they did in 1999 when compared to small and large contractors.
Figure 5-3. DoD Contract Spending for Services by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009
Contractor Size Category (11-year CAGR) Large Contractors [$3B+] (11.7%)
21.5 64.8
30.7 60.0
15.5 37.6
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
1999 Services
2009 Services
33
DoD Contract Spending for R&D by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009
The changes that took place between 1999 and 2009 in the spread of R&D-providing contractors for DoD are illustrated in Figure 5-4. Again, contractors are classified in the same manner as in the contractors in the aggregated contract categories in Figure 5-1. While experiencing 7-8 percent annual growth in contract awards for products and services, midtier contractors grew by a mere 2 percent annually in R&D. In this they have been outpaced both by large contractors (nearly 8 percent in R&D) and small contractors (nearly 5 percent in R&D). In the R&D market, it is apparent that large contractors continued to dominate, with the same five contractors controlling three-fourths of DoD R&D contracting, as previously discussed. As in the earlier figures with R&D contract spending, classified contracts are not included in this analysis.
Figure 5-4. DoD Contract Spending for R&D by Contractor Size, 1999 and 2009
Contractor Size Category (11-year CAGR) Large Contractors [$3B+] (7.8%)
15.3 32.6
5.1 6.4
3.1 4.9
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
1999 R&D
2009 R&D
34
6. Summary
In DoD contracting overall, services grew at a much faster pace in the past 20 years than did products and R&D, and were it not for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would possibly have continued to receive the lions share of DoD contract awards. Also as a result of these operations, Army and other DoD (primarily DLA) shares of total contracting grew while the Navy and Air Force shares declined. With U.S. forces set to withdraw from Iraq, the Armys contract spending started to decrease in 2008 while the Navys spending also shrunk and continued its long decline after a short period of stagnation. In an unprecedented occurrence, the share of Air Force contract spending in the last few years declined to the lowest of all DoD components. Trends in competition and funding mechanisms were mostly encouraging. Overall, the majority of DoD contract dollars were awarded on an increasingly competitive basis towards the end of the period analyzed, and dollars awarded competitively rose faster than those awarded without competition. The share of contract dollars awarded using fixed price contracts also grew, at a faster rate than cost-based contract awards. Up through 2009, there was a disturbing and sudden rise in combination contracts, which obfuscated the total distribution of cost and price-based contracts, but contract spending allocated to this category seems to have all but disappeared in 2010. Finally, in another trend viewed with concern in light of recent efficiency-promoting directives within DoD, the spending on indefinite delivery vehicles rose sharply in the past several years while definitive contracts and purchase orders stagnated and even declined in 2010. Regarding the industrial base supporting DoD, there is little evidence in the data that the defense industry is consolidating into an oligopoly dominated by a small number of incumbent firms. While the top 5 defense contractors overall and in products and R&D retained their position from 1999 to 2009, there were dynamic changes in the composition of the top 20 contractors in the industry during this time. Health care contractors rose closer to the top within the services category, while energy companies and ground vehicle producers did the same in products. Furthermore, in the fastest growing sector the services sector the top 20 list from 1999 is very different than the top 20 list from 2009. This indicates that there is a healthy circulation of contractors in and out of the top positions by value of contracts awarded. In terms of distribution of contract dollars according to the company size, it is clear that there was a squeezing of mid-sized contractors from both large and small contractors. This is particularly noticeable in spending on products, where medium-sized contractors lost their share in the market to both large and small contractors. These data indicate a positive development, however, as it appears that the governments small business set-aside program is succeeding. Finally, taking into account the numbers for R&D spending and the relatively static positions of top contractors within that industry, it appears that the same 4 large contractors dominated the R&D market for the last 10 years.
35
About CSIS At a time of new global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and policy solutions to decisionmakers in government, international institutions, the private sector, and civil society. A bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, DC, CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways for America to sustain its prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the worlds preeminent international policy institutions, with more than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focused on defense and security, regional stability, and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global development and economic integration. Former U.S. senator Sam Nunn became chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in 1999, and John J. Hamre has led CSIS as its president and chief executive officer since April 2000. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed in this presentation should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
36
1800 K Street NW | Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 E-mail: books@csis.org | Web: www.csis.org