THE 2020 FEDERAL SCORECARD - Govini

THE 2020 FEDERAL SCORECARD

HIGH-INTENSITY

WARFARE EDITION


In 2018, the Pentagon published a National Defense Strategy (NDS) that set a new course for the U.S. Joint Force. Instead of preparing to fight rogue regional powers while waging a global campaign against violent extremists, it declared:

The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition by…revisionist powers. It is increasingly clear that China and Russia want to shape a world consistent with their authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions.

It goes on to say:

This increasingly complex security environment is defined by rapid technological change, challenges from adversaries in every operating domain, and the impact on current readiness from the longest continuous stretch of armed conflict in our Nation’s history. In this environment, there can be no complacency—we must make difficult choices and prioritize what is most important to field a lethal, resilient, and rapidly adapting Joint Force.

In essence, the 2018 NDS challenges the Joint Force to be able to deter two military peers and, if deterrence fails, to prevail in high-intensity, high-technology warfare. The 2020 Federal Scorecard is designed to analyze whether the bold call of the 2018 NDS has had a material

impact on the Department’s defense program and budget. It leverages data analytics to assess DoD’s resource alignment with the NDS. The 2020 Federal Scorecard builds on last year’s successes while incorporating new data sets and pioneering novel metrics.

This year’s Scorecard taxonomizes the eight Modernization Priorities outlined in the 2018 NDS to meet the expected “key capability and capacity needs” of the Joint Force. Using this taxonomy, the Scorecard reports budget and spending patterns, including academic research and grants, to examine the level of innovation supporting each priority area.

In addition to data analytics, the Scorecard includes four issue briefs that highlight the breadth of Govini’s analytic capabilities as well as preview forthcoming modules in the Govini Decision Science Platform. These include a supply chain analysis of select DoD vendors in the Hypersonics market, a deep-dive on DoD investments and congressional interest in Quantum Sciences, a review of RDT&E Budget Activity trends, and an assessment of how COVID-19 jeopardizes small businesses working with DoD.

Govini’s data science capability holds enormous potential for helping the Department of Defense save precious resources while at the same time verifying that the Secretary’s strategic vision is being implemented. The 2020 Federal Scorecard serves as proof of the power of data-driven analysis and demonstrates how data science can support leaders within the Pentagon as well as across the broader Department.

James A. “Sandy” Winnefeld Jr., 9th Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffRobert O. Work, 32nd Deputy Secretary of Defense


Table of Contents

Page Page PageSection Section Section

6 56

84

88

90

12 60

15 62

18 64

21 66

30 72

76

27 70

32 74

44 78

Department of Defense Overview

NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy

Introduction COVID-19 Risk for Small Business in the National Security Innovation Base NDS Modernization Priorities Guide

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Military Departments Guide

U.S. Interagency Guide

Vendor Index

Defense Information Systems Agency DoD Components Guide

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Missile Defense Agency

Hypersonics Supply Chain Vulnerability to Foreign Influence

Department of Energy

Department of Homeland Security

Department of Justice

Department of State

National Aeronautics & Space Administration

National Science Foundation

Quantum Technologies as a StrategicDefense Priority

Innovation in Execution of the 2018 National Defense Strategy

U.S. Special Operations Command

Department of the Air Force

1 50 81

4 54 87

58

2

9

52

24 68

38

Advanced Autonomous Systems

Air & Missile Defense

C5ISR

Lethality & Resilience

Nuclear Forces

Resilient & Agile Logistics

Space

RDT&E Budget Activity Trends

Department of the Army

Department of the Navy


COVID-19 came as a shock to both our national security enterprise and the nation. As a country, we continue to work through its immediate impacts while also planning for long-term recovery. Yet the security challenges that previously confronted the United States have not abated. It is within this context that Govini proudly presents the 2020 Federal Scorecard. This year’s Federal Scorecard examines the Department’s investments in the eight National Defense Strategy (NDS) Modernization Priorities necessary to build a lethal force able to defeat China or Russia in a high-intensity war. It applies decision science to objectively measure whether the national security enterprise is making the hard choices necessary to realign resources to develop a more modern and lethal military force.

The United States is not alone in recognizing the critical importance of these priority areas to the future of warfare and specifically high-intensity conflict. U.S. strategic competitors, primarily Russia and China, are likewise investing in these key technologies. Staying ahead of our competitors requires not only a disciplined use of taxpayer dollars but also harnessing the innovative power of American civil society. The Department of Defense must create avenues for groundbreaking ideas and technologies to be developed, prototyped, and fielded faster than our adversaries. For that reason, the 2020 Federal Scorecard includes an Innovation Ranking for each NDS Modernization Priority. The Innovation Ranking uses metrics based on contract, budget, grants, and academic research data to rank the Department’s commitment to spurring innovation in each area. This analysis, along with the rest of the 2020 Federal Scorecard, demonstrates the power of Govini’s Decision Science Platform to generate critical insights for decision-makers tackling DoD’s most vexing challenges.

The 2020 Federal Scorecard starts with an assessment of the FY21 President’s Budget Request for the Department of Defense which highlights the NDS Modernization Priorities and the Innovation Review. It includes an examination of each Military Department’s investments and contains deep-dive papers on RDT&E budget trends, COVID-19 implications for small businesses, hypersonics supply chain exposure to foreign infiltration, and quantum technologies. Recognizing that great power competition requires all elements of U.S. national power working in concert, the Scorecard concludes with an examination of investments by other departments and agencies in the national security enterprise. Continued military advantage against great power competitors is not guaranteed. Smart investments in the NDS Modernization Priorities can help ensure that the United States has the necessary technology and capabilities to prevail in future, high-intensity battlefields. Govini’s 2020 Federal Scorecard attempts to overcome the Department’s data disadvantage in this endeavor and provide a window into the state of these objectives. Sincerely,

Tara Murphy Dougherty, CEO

Introduction

1


2

The National Defense Strategy (NDS) directed an ambitious reorientation of DoD away from counterterrorism and irregular warfare and toward great power competition. Central to this reorientation is ensuring that future force is sufficiently modern to be able to deter and, if necessary, defeat great power rivals in high-intensity warfare. Previous DoD budgets have made steady progress toward implementing this goal, but there is more work to be done. The FY2021 President’s Budget Request (PBR) will be the last chance before the next presidential election for this administration to drive implementation of the NDS forward, and Secretary of Defense Esper has stated that it supports “irreversible implementation” of the NDS.

After several years of sizable budget increases, however, the FY21 topline request is $5B lower than the enacted FY20 budget. Moreover, even with projected topline increases in the out years of the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP), continued growth in the Military Personnel and Operations & Maintenance accounts will put increasing pressure on other parts of the budget. The FY21 PBR offsets some of this budgetary pressure with reductions to the Overseas Contingency Operations and Military Construction accounts, but it also decreases funding for DoD’s investment budget (RDT&E and Procurement).

The DoD investment budget is central to implementing the NDS directive to modernize the Joint Force in order to preserve U.S. advantage in high-intensity warfighting. Investment in the Modernization Priorities identified in the NDS increased from $113B in FY16 to $155B in FY20. Moreover, as a share of the DoD investment

budget, it grew from 69% in FY16 to 77% in FY20, indicating that the increased investment in Modernization Priorities has been a result not just of budget increases but also of a reprioritization of resources within DoD. However, the share of the investment budget devoted to the Modernization Priorities is projected to grow only to 78% by the end of the FYDP, just a 1% increase over FY20. This pattern, coupled with a projected stagnation of the investment budget over the FYDP, suggests that future resource shifts in DoD’s modernization efforts will come from trades across the NDS Modernization Priorities rather than reallocation of funds away from other areas.

DoD, therefore, faces a considerable challenge as it modernizes. Many legacy platforms are reaching their end-of-service lives and will need to be upgraded or replaced to preserve U.S. warfighting capability in the near-to mid-term. At the same time, DoD must develop its next generation of capabilities while also investing in emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, that are changing the character of warfare. Finally, DoD has to recapitalize all three legs of its aging nuclear triad, as well as its nuclear command, control, and communication architecture (NC3). Balancing these competing needs will not be easy, and DoD will face difficult tradeoffs among Modernization Priorities.

Within the investment budget, the FY21 PBR prioritizes recapitalization of the nuclear enterprise, which jumps by more than $3B in FY21 to $10B and is projected to continue growing over the FYDP, reaching $13.3B in FY25. It also prioritizes investment in the development and procurement of next-generation platforms, such as the F-35, as well as RDT&E for emerging technology areas such as artificial intelligence and hypersonics, although investment in these technology areas peaks in

Department of Defense Overview

3

FY21-22. Investment in these areas is paid for by reductions in upgrades and new procurement of legacy platforms, which decrease by nearly $7.5B in FY21.

One of the most significant priorities funded in the FY21 PBR is the establishment of the Space Force. While the full Space Force stand-up will continue through FY25, FY21 begins the ramp-up in earnest. The FY21 PBR formally assigns and realigns Air Force personnel and resources to prioritize the expanded space mission. Although the Department’s space investment budget stays the course in the near-term—increasing by less than 1% from FY20 to FY21—significant increases are planned later in the FYDP, peaking in FY24 at $12.9B.

Among the Military Departments, the Army maintains its focus on readiness and modernization efforts despite a decrease in its share of the DoD topline over the FYDP from 24.5% to 22.7%. The Navy slightly

increases RDT&E investment in FY21, but that planned increase returnsto the pre-NDS level by the end of the FYDP, while Military Personnel and O&M accounts rise. In addition to the Space Force stand-up, the Air Force prioritizes nuclear modernization and readiness at the expense of other capability modernization efforts like unmanned systems and strategic lift.

In total, the FY21 PBR assumes some near-term risk in the Procurement budget, favoring investment in next-generation capabilities and emerging technologies over legacy platforms that could bolster lethality now. However, this RDT&E funding wedge may not last long, as the topline requirements to recapitalize the nuclear triad, build out the Space Force, and pay for military personnel cost growth risk crowding out these RDT&E gains over the FYDP. How the Department navigates this tension over the next few budgets will define its ability to adapt to evolving threats and to pivot toward the future force called for in the NDS.

Total DoD Investment Budget, % Allocated to NDS Modernization Priorities

DoD TOA by Military Department, FY16 - 20 Enacted and FY21 - 25 Requested

Non-NDS Modernization Priority

30.9%

69.1%

26.7%

73.3%

25.1%

74.9%

25.6%

74.4%

23.3%

76.7%

23.7%

76.3%

23.1%

76.9%

22.2%

77.8%

21.6%

78.4%

22.4%

77.6%

NDS Modernization Priority Army Navy Air Force Defense-Wide

4

NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy

The principal problem that the National Defense Strategy (NDS) aims to solve is the U.S. military’s eroding conventional deterrent vis-à-vis China and Russia. As such, the Strategy directs DoD to build a more lethal force to preserve the U.S. military’s advantage in high-intensity warfighting. While improving readiness, enhancing force posture, and developing new warfighting concepts are all vital elements of building a more lethal force, the core of the effort rests on modernizing the Armed Forces. As the NDS notes, “We cannot expect success fighting tomorrow’s conflicts with yesterday’s weapons and equipment.” To this end, the NDS identifies eight Modernization Priorities to guide DoD’s future capability development and modernization investments. These include: Nuclear Forces, Space and Cyberspace as Warfighting Domains, C4ISR, Missile Defense, Joint Lethality in Contested Environments, Forward Force Maneuver and Posture Resilience, Advanced Autonomous Systems, and Resilient and Agile Logistics.

The NDS Modernization Priorities cut across the defense enterprise and are broadly defined, allowing for varying interpretations on what is included as a resource investment in furtherance of NDS priorities. Without a clear and consistent definition, it’s difficult for senior Department leaders to speak about investments in these portfolios with a consistent “apples-to-apples” understanding of each across the defense enterprise. More pointedly, today, it’s nearly impossible to discern whether true and meaningful resource shifts are occurring to advance the capabilities of the future force or whether existing programs are being rebranded to fit within the NDS construct. To enable senior defense leaders, program managers, and analysts to effectively manage these portfolios, Govini structured the NDS Modernization Priorities into a taxonomy that illuminates trends in DoD’s historical and planned investments.

The NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy consists of seven segments (orange boxes), each corresponding to a modernization priority with two key modifications. First, the taxonomy combines Joint Lethality in Contested Environments and Forward Force Maneuver and Posture Resilience into a single segment: Joint Lethality & Resilience in Contested Environments. Second, the taxonomy breaks apart cyber from space and combines it with C4ISR to create a C5ISR segment. The taxonomy incorporates multiple subsegments (white boxes) that constitute each segment and provide a more granular view of investments within each modernization priority.

Similar to past Govini Scorecards, the 2020 Federal Scorecard’s NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy analyzes DoD budget and contracts data to evaluate investment and spending patterns across each of the seven segments.1 However, for the first time, this Scorecard also incorporates grants and academic research data. To classify these discrete datasets, the 2020 Federal Scorecard leverages cutting-edge data science and machine learning tools.

ApproachA suite of custom neural networks was developed to clean and embed documents contained within budget, contracts, grants, and academic research data in multiple high-dimensional spaces. These high-dimensional spaces account not only for the content of any document but also for key values from Govini’s unique catalog of metadata. Using custom, state-of-the-art gradient boosted classifiers, we assigned each dollar to its appropriate subsegment within the NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy. The model’s classification of dollars budgeted and spent is supervised by a team of defense subject matter experts.

1Budget and contracts data is based on unclassified dollars.


5

BudgetThe NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy examines the DoD investment budget, which consists of the RDT&E and Procurement budget accounts, from FY16 to FY25. The investment budget drives funding for DoD’s modernization efforts. Analysis was conducted at the most granular level possible; the line item level for Procurement and either the accomplishment level or the project level for RDT&E.2 Approximately 76% (~$1.4 trillion) of the entire investment budget over the period was captured within the taxonomy.

SpendThe contracts analysis was conducted by examining all DoD prime awarded contracts from FY16 to FY19. Approximately 123,000 contracts were positively assigned within the taxonomy valuing about $680 billion. Contracts were classified holistically—not at the modification level. If a contract spread across several subsegments, it was assigned to the subsegment where it had the highest obligations.

GrantsApproximately 14,000 DoD-funded grants from FY16 to FY19 were classified across the taxonomy. They value $3.9 billion and represent about 11% of DoD’s grant obligations during that time period.

Academic ResearchFrom 2018 to 2019, DoD funded nearly 22,000 academic research documents that fit within the NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy. Of all articles, conference papers, books, and data papers examined, 67% were categorized within taxonomy segments.

CongressionalTo evaluate Congressional interest, nearly 2,700 hearing transcripts from FY16 to FY19 were analyzed for linkages to the NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy. The analysis focused on twenty five select House, Senate, and Joint committees of interest.3 Of the hearings examined, 98% were connected to a subsegment in the taxonomy.

2In a few instances accomplishment-level data was used to classify elements of the RDT&E budget that could not be positively identified based on project-level data alone.3These include: Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe; Committee on Appropriations; Committee on Armed Services; Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation; Committee on Foreign Affairs; Committee on Foreign Relations; Committee on Homeland Security; Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; Committee on Oversight; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; Committee on Oversight and Reform; Committee on Science, Space, and Technology; Committee on Small Business; Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship; Committee on the Budget; Committee on Ways and Means; Select Committee on Intelligence.

6

INNOVATION IN EXECUTION OF THE 2018 NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY

Total Investment Budget Year-Over-Year by Military Department Army Navy Air Force Defense-Wide Total Investment Budget

In-Taxonomy

7


Lethality & Resilience C5ISR Air & Missile Defense Resilient & Agile Logistics Advanced Autonomous SystemsSpace Nuclear Forces

Year-Over-Year Investment Budget by Segment, FY16 - 25

Despite their critical role shaping the future of warfare, Advanced Autonomous Systems investments in PB21 averaged $5.8B per year, only modestly (12%) greater than they were pre-NDS with $5.1B per year from FY16 - 18

Nuclear is the largest growing segment post-NDS, with PBR21 averaging $11.4B per year relative to FY16 - 18 $5.5B per year

8


Total Contract Obligations by Military Department, FY15 - 19

Army Navy Air Force Defense-Wide

NDS investments in FY19 continue an investment trend started by the Third Offset in FY15

Navy is the largest investor in NDS priorities to date, with more than twice the amount of contract obligations towards lethality and resilience than other Military Departmentts

9

Investment in Next Generation Platforms, and DoD’s transition to a more lethal & resilient force, is slowed by continued investment in Legacy Platforms

More rapid progress is occurring in munitions as Hypersonics and Advanced Munitions grew at a 21% and 9% CAGR, respectively, and with funding totals more closely matching Legacy Munitions

Dollars

Advanced MunitionsLegacy Platforms

Close-Combat Lethality HypersonicsNext Gen Platforms Legacy Munitions

$18B

$24B


OverviewLETHALITY & RESILIENCE

Investment Budget by Military Dept. & Subsegment, FY16 - 25 Investment Budget Velocity by Subsegment, FY16 - 25

Click Here to Reference the NDS Modernization Priorities Guide

10

MILDEPRank CII

128

247

344

1.25 0.5

1.5 0.5

1 0.5

147

218

314

13 6

16 8

15 7

3

2

1

Recent Works H Index

Army

Navy

USAF

Academic Research

2018 2018 20182019 2019 2019% Change

14.8%

11.7%

8.7%

FY18-19 FY16-17

MILDEPRank OTA & SBIR/STTR

$28.9 B

$87.2 B

$22.6 B

$434.0 M

$4.6 B

$844.8 M

110%

15%

102%

$294.3 M

$141.2 M

$127.9 M

$32.7 B

$86.6 B

$30.0 B

$913.3 M

$3.9 B

$1.7 B

13%

1%

33%

RDT&E ObligationsContract Obligations

Army

Navy

USAF

Contracts

FY16 - 17FY16 - 19 FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % Change% ChangeFY18 - 19

2

1

3

2

1

3

MILDEP Grant Dollars

39.6% $20.0 MAdvanced Functional Fabrics of America

652.1% $3.8 MUniversity Of Mississippi

46.5% $13.4 MUniversity Of Dayton

Largest Grant Recipient

Army

Navy

USAF

GrantsMILDEP Investment

$43.6 M

$31.8 M

$67.0 M

FY16 - 19 FY16 - 19 Recipient Award

$27.2 M

$3.7 M

$43.6 M

$16.4 M

$28.0 M

$23.3 M

FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % ChangeFY18-19 FY16-17

3

1

2

2

3

1

Rank


MILDEPRank Budget Activity 6.1 - 6.4 Budget Activity 6.5 - 6.8

6.5%

0.7%

19.2%

77%

62%

45%

11%

10%

10%

Army

Navy

USAF

Budget% RDT&E

26% 32%

12% 14%

39% 39%

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$8.9 B $15.6 B

$7.3 B $11.9 B

$17.1 B $24.9 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$8.9 B $7.9 B

$17.3 B $15.6 B

$15.9 B $14.3 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$68.8 B

$197.4 B

$84.4 B

Investment Budget

FY16 - 20

$73.3 B

$198.8 B

$100.6 B

FY21 - 25

2

3

1

2

3

1

FY16-20 FY21-25 % Change% Change% Change

Top Affiliations

U.S. Army Research Lab, U. of Michigan

U.S. Naval Research Lab, Texas A&M U.

USAF Research Lab, Purdue U.

FY18 - 19

Innovation RankingLETHALITY & RESILIENCE

11

Funding Agency

Prime Awarded Value ($M)




Defense-Wide

10

20

30


Rank Modernization Priority Top Committee # of Congressional Districts Largest District

2 6.5%611 571 MO-01

TX-12

FL-10529 514

217 218

2.8%

0.5%1

Legacy Platforms

Close-Combat Lethality

Next Generation Platforms

3 Senate Armed Services Committee

House Armed Services Committee


FY16 - 19 FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % Change By $ Value

Congressional Hearing References

1.8

2.3

1.6

Total Contract Obligations by Place of Performance, FY16 - 19

Congressional InterestLETHALITY & RESILIENCE

113 7.2%

90 5.8%

69 4.4%

FY16 - 17

61 5.4%

39 3.5%

32 2.8%

FY18 - 19# of Ref. # of Ref.% of Total % of Total

% Point Change

12

C5ISR1 grows steadily since 2018 NDS release, and with a 8.6% jump from FY20 to FY21, due to the criticality of these enablers in future operating concepts

Surprisingly little growth in Spectrum Dominance over the ten-year timeframe given the challenges of operating in a contested spectrum environment

Dollars

C4I CyberISR Spectrum Dominance

1C5ISR: Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance


OverviewC5ISR



13

MILDEPRank CII

701

1,107

1,281

1.75 0.5

1.75 0.5

1.75 0.5

703

1,188

1,130

26 14

0 11

33 0

2

1

3


Army

Navy

USAF

Academic Research

2018 2018 20182019 2019 2019% Change

0.3%

7.3%

11.8%

FY18-19 FY16-17


$10.5 B

$12.5 B

$9.6 B

$604.1 M

$2.1 B

$1.2 B

104%

16%

84%

$1.5 B

$290.6 M

$348.7 M

$11.7 B

$14.7 B

$13.1 B

$1.2 B

$2.5 B

$2.2 B

11%

18%

36%


Army

Navy

USAF

Contracts


3

1

2

2

1

3


204.9% $21.3 MOak Ridge Associated Universities Inc.

941.3% $20.8 MState Of California


Army

Navy


$340.4 M

$193.8 M


$84.1 M

$17.0 M

$256.3 M

$176.8 M

FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % ChangeFY18-19 FY16-17

3

2

1

3

20.3% $20.7 MMITUSAF $208.7 M $116.1 M $92.6 M1 2

Rank



3.7%

22.8%

39.5%

6%

11%

81%

29%

9%

27%

Army

Navy

USAF

Budget% RDT&E

33% 26%

40% 36%

70% 77%

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$4.1 B $3.8 B

$3.7 B $4.1 B

$5.2 B $9.4 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$4.3 B $3.0 B

$10.1 B $11.1 B

$5.4 B $6.9 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$25.5 B

$34.9 B

$15.3 B

$26.4 B

$42.8 B

$21.3 B

Investment Budget

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

3

2

1

3

2

1

FY16-20FY21-25 % Change% Change% Change

Top Affiliations

U.S. Army Research Lab, MIT

U.S. Naval Research Lab, MIT

USAF Research Lab, Stanford U.

FY18 - 19

Innovation RankingC5ISR

14

Funding Agency





Defense-Wide

10

20

30



1 8.5%341 370 MD-02, MD-03

CT-03

VA-10, VA-11607 585

234 230

3.6%

1.7%2

Cyber

C4I

Spectrum Dominance

3

House Homeland Security Committee


Senate Appropriations Committee



2.5

4.1

2.7


Congressional InterestC5ISR

437 28%

379 24.3%

136 8.7%

FY16 - 17

286 25.5%

226 20.1%

67 6%


% Point Change

15

Homeland Missile Defense remains largest subsegment in light of North Korean ICBM threat

SHORAD grows the most from FY16 to FY25 as the Army prepares for high-intensity warfare against Russia

Dollars

Short-Range Point Air Defense (SHORAD)Homeland Missile Defense

Directed EnergyTheater BMD Theater IAMD

Army Army Navy Air Force Defense-Wide

OverviewAIR & MISSILE DEFENSE



16

MILDEPRank CII

10

20

23

1 0.25

0.5 0.25

1.25 1

10

17

28

3 1

0 0

0 4

2

3

1


Army

Navy

USAF

Academic Research

2018 2018 20182019 2019 2019% Change

0%

15%

21.7%

FY18-19 FY16-17


$7.4 B

$7.6 B

$1.2 B

$621.2 M

$418.1 M

$231.1 M

111%

14%

25%

$210.2 M

$33.3 M

$484.4 M

$13.8 B

$6.6 B

$1.7 B

$1.3 B

$478.3 M

$288.9 M

88%

13%

46%


Army

Navy

USAF

Contracts


1

2

3

2

1

3


188.4% $0.9 M

17.4% $1.9 MDirected Energy Professional Society

Directed Energy Professional Society


Army

USAF


$3.7 M

$10.7 M


$1.0 M

$4.9 M

$2.7 M

$5.8 M

FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % ChangeFY18-19 FY16-17

3

2

3

2

Rank



9.9%

33.8%

6.1%

11.6%

7.6%

0.3%

13.9%

9.9%

50.7%

Army

Navy

USAF

Budget% RDT&E

44% 38%

51% 34%

84% 94%

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$2.7 B $3.0 B

$976.0 M $901.0 M

$1.6 B $1.6 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$4.9 B $4.3 B

$4.5 B $4.1 B

$184.0 M $278.0 M

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$17.1 B

$10.9 B

$2.1 B

$18.8 B

$14.6 B

$2.0 B

Investment Budget

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

3

2

1

3

2

1


Top Affiliations

U. of California Berkeley, Lehigh U.

U.S. Naval Research Lab, Purdue U.

USAF Research Lab, U. of Central Florida

FY18 - 19

Innovation RankingAIR & MISSILE DEFENSE

29.9% $7.3 MUniversity Of MissouriNavy $23.0 M $10.0 M $13.0 M1 1

Theater IAMD

Directed Energy

Theater BMD

17

Funding Agency





Defense-Wide

10

20

30



3 1.1%182 184 TX-06, TX-30, TX-33

TX-06, TX-30, TX-33

IL-06, IL-08, IL-09120 129

73 69

7.5%

5.5%2

1






1.8

0.0

1.2


Congressional InterestAIR & MISSILE DEFENSE

72 4.6%

23 1.5%

30 1.9%

FY16 - 17

31 2.8%

16 1.4%

8 0.7%


% Point Change

18

Nuclear Force investments triple from FY16 - 25 given years of deferred modernization and the necessity of a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent in a great power context

Large growth in the highest investment subsegment, Delivery Vehicles, driven by investments in Columbia Class Submarines and the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent

Dollars

Delivery Vehicles & Platforms NC3 Weapons


OverviewNUCLEAR FORCES



19

MILDEPRank CII

8

24

16

1 0.75

1 0.5

1 0.25

7

11

14

3 0

0 0

6 0

2

1

3


Army

Navy

USAF

Academic Research

2018 2018 20182019 2019 2019% Change

12.5%

54.2%

12.5%

FY18-19 FY16-17


$498.2 M

$7.8 B

$2.5 B

$17.3 M

$66.2 M

$191.7 M

51%

64%

129%

$4.2 M

$67.4 M

$67.4 M

$5.8 B

$7.9 B

$3.6 B

$8.6 M

$108.4 M

$439.8 M

1060%

1%

42%


Army

Navy

USAF

Contracts


2

1

3

3

1

2


54.7%

880.6%

$4.4 MMississippi State University

$0.3 MUniversity Of Alabama Birmingham

42.8% $0.7 MSan Diego State University


Army

Navy

USAF


$9.6 M

$687.8 K

$2.4 M


$6.6 M

$63.7 K

$1.6 M

$3.0 M

$624.2 K

$889.7 K

FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % ChangeFY18-19 FY16-17

1

3

2

1

3

2

Rank



25.6%

93.2%

134%

70%

775%

100% 2%

124%

13%

Army

Navy

USAF

Budget% RDT&E

0% 0%

29% 9%

76% 92%

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$7.6 M

$4.5 B $1.4 B

$1.6 B $14.0 B

$0.0

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$20.2M $20.7 M

$744.9 M $1.7 B

$5.6 B $6.3 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$27.8 M

$18.0 B

$9.5 B

$20.7 M

$34.7 B

$22.2 B

Investment Budget

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

3

1

2

3

1

2


Top Affiliations

U. of Notre Dame, Rutgers U.

U.S. Naval Research Lab, Purdue U.

USAF Research Lab, U. of Texas Austin

FY18 - 19

Innovation RankingNUCLEAR FORCES

20

Funding Agency





Defense-Wide

10

20

30



3 7.4%175 162 TN-02,TN-03

OK-04,OK-05

CT-02197 196

118 112

0.5%

5.1%1

Weapons

Delivery Vehicles

NC3

2 Senate Appropriations Committee

House Foreign Affairs Committee




3.6

1

0.7


Congressional InterestNUCLEAR FORCES

219 14%

83 5.3%

24 1.5%

FY16 - 17

117 10.4%

49 4.4%

9 0.8%


% Point Change

21

Resilient and Forward Logistics represents over 60% of the total segment investment peaking at 77% in the current request year (FY21)

KC- 46, C-130, and Naval Reactors are largest spending items in the segment

Dollars

Resilient Forward Logistics Advanced Fuels & EnergyStrategic LiftAdvanced Materials & Manufacturing


OverviewRESILIENT & AGILE LOGISTICS

$10B



22

MILDEPRank CII

316

586

523

2.5 0.75

3.5 0.75

2.5 0.75

346

534

471

22 0

40 0

32 13

3

1

2


Army

Navy

USAF

Academic Research

2018 2018 20182019 2019 2019% Change

9.5%

8.9%

9.9%

FY18-19 FY16-17


$3.1 B

$10.2 B

$15.0 B

$144.3 M

$95.0 M

$163.1 M

13%

42%

10%

$112.1 M

$117.8 M

$78.0 M

$3.1 B

$11.9 B

$11.7 B

$125.5 M

$134.7 M

$179.1 M

1%

17%

22%


Army

Navy

USAF

Contracts


3

1

2

3

2

1


36.0% $1.4 MPPG Industries Inc.

758.8% $6.5 MUniversity of Hawaii

17.7% $8.8 MNat. Center for Defense Manuf. and Machining


Army

Navy

USAF


$84.3 M

$123.1 M

$161.7 M


$35.7 M

$12.8 M

$88.7 M

$48.6 M

$110.2 M

$73.0 M

FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % ChangeFY18-19 FY16-17

3

1

2

2

3

1

Rank



21.6%

3.6%

19.7%

3%

10%

23%

7%

3%

55%

Army

Navy

USAF

Budget% RDT&E

23% 28%

15% 16%

18% 14%

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$1.4 B $1.3 B

$1.2 B $1.4 B

$2.5 B $2.0 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$1.8 B $1.6 B

$1.4 B $1.3 B

$1.8 B $817.5 M

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$13.4 B

$16.8 B

$24.5 B

$10.5 B

$16.2 B

$19.7 B

Investment Budget

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

1

2

3

1

3

2


Top Affiliations

U.S. Army Research Lab, Northwestern U.

U.S. Naval Research Lab, NC State U.

USAF Research Lab, Georgia Tech

FY18 - 19

Innovation RankingRESILIENT & AGILE LOGISTICS

23

Funding Agency





Defense-Wide

10

20

30



1 7.2%601 PA-18

WA-07,WA-09

MD-01377

243

7.7%

2.9%2

Advanced Fuels & Energy

Advanced Materials & Manufacturing

Resilient & Forward Logistics

3 Senate Armed Services Committee



FY16 - 19 FY16 - 17

558

348

236

FY18 - 19 % Change By $ Value


1.5

1.6

1.4


Congressional InterestRESILIENT & AGILE LOGISTICS

474 30.3%

56 3.6%

54 3.5%

FY16 - 17

324 28.9%

22 2.0%

23 2.0%


% Point Change

24

Space investments climb starting in FY20 as DoD recognizes space as a “warfighting domain”

Investment in Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared (OPIR) missile-warning satellites leads segment demonstrating the importance of space assets to homeland defense

Dollars

Space ISR & PNT SATCOMLift Vehicles Space SA


OverviewSPACE



25


4.4% $281.3 KUniversity of Maryland

25.5% $2.1 MNew Mexico Institute Of Mining And Technology


Army

USAF


$1.9 M

$29.0 M


$0.9 M

$12.9 M

$1.0 M

$16.2 M

FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % Change

MILDEPRank

Rank

CII

5

29

57

1.25 1

1.25 0.5

0.5 0.25

5

30

47

3 0

0 0

6 0

3

1

2


Army

Navy

USAF

Academic Research

2018 2018 20182019 2019 2019% Change

0.0%

3.4%

17.5%

FY18-19

FY18-19

FY16-17

FY16-17


$1.3 B

$918.3 M

$11.4 B

$47.4 M

$54.0 M

$2.0 B

21%

427%

48%

$43.2 M

$5.5 M

$2.6 B

$1.2 B

$1.5 B

$12.7 B

$57.2 M

$284.5 M

$2.9 B

11%

58%

12%


Army

Navy

USAF

Contracts


3

3

2

1

1

2

2

3

373.4% $10.0 KUniversity Of ArizonaNavy $3.2 M $0.6 M $2.6 M2 3

1

1



3.9%

26.2%

18.8%

472%

29%

77%

14%

33%

16%

Army

Navy

USAF

Budget% RDT&E

19% 45%

30% 28%

64% 71%

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$69.4 M $396.4 M

$26.4 M $34.2 M

$6.2 B $10.9 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$148.6 M $128.2 M

$569.4 M $379.3 M

$18.2 B $21.0 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$1.1 B

$2.0 B

$38.0 B

$1.2 B

$1.5 B

$45.1 B

Investment Budget

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

2

3

1

3

2

1


Top Affiliations

U. of California Irvine, U. of Virginia

U.S. Naval Research Lab, U. of Washington Seattle

USAF Research Lab, U. of Colorado Boulder

FY18 - 19

Innovation RankingSPACE

26

Funding Agency





Defense-Wide

10

20

30



3 2.9%245 238 CO-06

CO-05

CO-04, CO-0646 45

73 66

2.2%

9.6%1

Space ISR & PNT

Lift Vehicles

Space SA

2

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology




2.5

1

0.5


Congressional InterestSPACE

92 5.9%

43 2.8%

30 1.9%

FY16 - 17

38 3.4%

20 1.8%

16 1.4%


% Point Change

27

Despite centrality to the future of war, advanced autonomous systems funding drops from FY20 to FY22 due to decreased Navy and Air Force investments in unmanned air platforms (MQ-25, MQ-4, MQ-9)

Unmanned Ground and Unmanned Surface spending are bright spots with growth of 31% and 19%, respectively, over the ten-year period


Dollars

Unmanned Surface PlatformsUnmanned Air Platforms

Unmanned Subsurface PlatformsArtificial Intelligence Unmanned Ground Platforms

$5B


OverviewADVANCED AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS


28


18%

9.5%

59.6%

193%

88%

45%

64%

20%

55%

Army

Navy

USAF

Budget% RDT&E

28% 60%

60% 67%

44% 52%

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$694.7 M $2.0 B

$2.8 B $5.2 B

$912.6 M $500.6 M

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$593.7 M $212.0 M

$4.3 B $3.5 B

$2.3 B $1.0 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$4.6 B

$11.7 B

$7.3 B

$3.8 B

$12.9 B

$2.9 B

Investment Budget

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

2

1

3

3

1

2

FY16-20FY21-25

FY18-19 FY16-17


$2.5 B

$2.5 B

$4.7 B

$61.8 M

$749.1 M

$301.6 M

187%

18%

77%

$66.5 M

$147.6 M

$85.9 M

$2.7 B

$2.4 B

$6.2 B

$177.2 M

$885.4 M

$533.5 M

9%

4%

31%


Army

Navy

USAF

Contracts

FY16 - 17FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % Change% Change

% Change% Change% Change

FY18 - 19

MILDEPRank CII Top Affiliations

385

604

464

1.25 0.5 U.S. Army Research Lab, U. Texas San Antonio

MIT, Carnegie Mellon U.

USAF Research Laboratory, Ohio State U.

1.25 0.5

1.25 0.5

430

545

473

21 9

22 10

18 10

3

1

2


Army

Navy

USAF

Academic Research

2018 2018 2018 FY18 - 192019 2019 2019% Change

11.7%

9.8%

1.9%

2

3

1

2

3

1


302.6% $6.5 MCarnegie Mellon University

623.5% $10.0 MState of California

24.8% $7.1 MCarnegie Mellon University


Army

Navy

USAF


$4.1 M

$67.2 M

$58.5 M

FY16 - 19

FY16 - 19

FY16 - 19 Recipient Award

$7.5 M

$8.2 M

$33.4 M

$30.0 M

$59.0 M

$25.1 M

FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % ChangeFY18-19 FY16-17

2

1

3

3

2

1

Rank


Innovation RankingADVANCED AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS

29



1 4.7%296 310 VA-11

CA-50, CA-52

CA-47, CA-48

205 215

37 32

4.9%

13.5%

131 8.4%

41 2.6%

7 0.4%

FY16 - 17

123 11%

14 1.2%

0 0%


% Point Change

2

Artificial Intelligence

Unmanned Air Platforms

Unmanned Subsurface Platforms

3

Senate Committee on Appropriations

Senate Armed Services Committee & Senate Appropriations Committee

Senate Armed Services Committee



2.6

1.4

0.4

Funding Agency





Defense-Wide

10

20

30


Congressional InterestADVANCED AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS

30

RDT&E Budget Activity Trends

RDT&E funding is the lifeblood of DoD’s modernization efforts. DoD’s RDT&E funding levels have surged in recent years, rising to $80.6B in FY20 (excluding classified pass-through dollars for space-related intelligence agencies),1 a more than $20B increase over FY16 levels. This trend is consistent with the NDS emphasis on building a more lethal future force able to prevail in high-intensity warfare against China or Russia. However, FY20 marked a peak for DoD RDT&E investment. Funding levels shrink to $79.4B in FY21 and are projected to continue decreasing over the FYDP. Given this stagnation in resources, it is imperative that DoD spends its RDT&E investment dollars efficiently and effectively. As such, trends within DoD’s RDT&E budget account can help shed light on how the Department is approaching capability development.2

Three key trends emerge from analysis of DoD’s RDT&E investment, FY16-25. First, funding for budget activities related to the research phase of capability development, 6.1: Basic Research and 6.2: Applied Research, are projected to decrease over the FYDP. Funding for 6.1 is projected to decline from its peak of $2.6B in FY20 to $2.4B in FY25, which is just $200M more than it was in FY16. The drop in 6.2 funding is projected to be even more drastic, decreasing from a peak of $7.6B in FY18 to just $5.9B in FY25. This trend suggests that DoD continues to rely more heavily on the U.S. private sector as the focal point of research activities.

Second, there has been an explosion in funding for 6.4: Advanced Component Development and Prototypes. Funding for 6.4 has nearly doubled from $14.3B in FY16 to $28.5B in FY21 and is projected to continue growing to $31.5B by FY25. Moreover, its share of total RDT&E funding has increased from 25% in FY16 to 36% in FY21 and is projected to reach over 43% in FY25. This increase in 6.4 funding is consistent with the NDS emphasis on prototyping and experimentation to improve speed and reduce risk in the capability development process.

Third, growth in 6.4 funding has largely come at the expense of 6.5: Systems Development and Demonstration, which accounted for nearly 24% of RDT&E funding in FY16 but is projected to decrease to less than 14% by FY25. In dollar value terms, 6.5 is projected to receive less funding in FY25 than it did in FY16. This decrease in 6.5 funding may reflect DoD estimates that the emphasis on 6.4 and prototyping will lead to greater efficiency and effectiveness in the later stages of capability development. It may be that DoD anticipates 6.4 prototypes to fail quickly, with few programs making it through to the next stage. But, even with an expansive approach to prototyping, DoD still needs to shepherd the most promising capabilities through the later stages of development to get them in the hands of the warfighter.


1Classified pass-through funding to space-related intelligence agencies varies by year. In FY21, it is roughly $27B. The vast majority of these dollars are concentrated in 6.7. This analysis and the accompanying chart exclude classified pass-through funding to space-related intelligence agencies.2RDT&E funding is divided into seven budget activities, 6.1-6.7, that each correspond to a step in the development process. These budget activities are: 6.1 Basic Research; 6.2 Applied Research; 6.3 Advanced Technology Development; 6.4 Advanced Component Development and Prototypes; 6.5 Systems Development and Demonstration; 6.6 RDT&E Management Support; 6.7 Operational Systems Development. For the purposes of this issue brief, the newly formed budget activity number 6.8 (Software and Digital Technology Programs) is excluded from the analysis.

31

RDT&E Investment by Budget Activity, FY16 - 25

Fiscal Year

Dolla

rs

The FY21 PBR furthers the Army’s modernization efforts to be able to fight in contested environments in Europe and Asia while still funding readiness in FY21 to be able to fight tonight. In particular, the Army made great strides investing in its six Modernization Priorities that are the lynchpin to its ability to deter or defeat great power aggression.

Several taxonomy subsegments related to the Army’s six Modernization Priorities see positive growth over the FYDP. For example, Next-Generation Platforms, which includes both the Next Generation Combat Vehicles (NGCV) and the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programs, sees $7B more in total funding over the FYDP compared to FY16-20. Close-Combat Lethality is also a big winner in this PBR, increasing by more than $800M from FY20 to FY21. This nearly 60% increase is driven by the procurement of the Integrated Visual Augmentation System (IVAS), which sees a tenfold increase in funding in FY21 and FY22 over the $100M received in FY20.

Even with topline constraints, the Army’s budget bolstered its RDT&E investments in emerging technology areas. Investment in Hypersonics increases by $350M in FY21 compared to FY20, while Artificial Intelligence funding is three times greater in FY21 than it was in FY16. This investment is sustained through the FYDP as well, with Hypersonics growing from $523M over FY16-20 to $3.4B over the FYDP and Artificial Intelligence nearly doubling its FY20 funding level in FY25. Investments in the Unmanned Ground Systems subsegment, which includes programs such as the Robotic Combat Vehicle (RCV), show a similar pattern with investment projected to climb from $875M in FY16 - 20 to $2.4B in FY21 - 25, a 174% increase. Interestingly, despite

playing a prominent role in the Army’s air and missile defense modernization plans, investment in Directed Energy in FY21 is only a quarter of what it was in FY19 and is projected to remain relatively flat over the FYDP.

The largest bill-payer for these shifts in Army modernization investments is Legacy Platforms, which dips from $8.4B in FY20 and to $7.2B in FY21 and down to $6.1B in FY25. The Army accepts some near-term risk in its preparedness for high-intensity warfare by delaying or reducing planned upgrades of legacy equipment to fund the development of next-generation capabilities and emerging technologies. For example, upgrades to the M1 Abrams take a $700M hit in FY21 but are gradually restored through the FYDP, while cuts in UH-60M Blackhawk and AH-64E Apache Remanufacture are more enduring, with the former falling from $6.9B in FY16 - 20 to $3.9B in FY21 - 25 (-43%) and the latter declining from $5.2B to $3.7B (-29%).

While the Army’s FY21 PBR continues its steady progress on modernization efforts, its investment budget is projected to decrease over the FYDP. This puts added pressure on its “Night Court” sessions to find efficiencies and divest from non-priority programs. Whether these reform efforts can garner sufficient resources to fund the Army’s modernization strategy in the FYDP may determine its efficacy in a high-end warfare against China or Russia.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYDecision Science Insights

32

13

Budget OverviewDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Air & Missile Defense, Lethality & Resilience, and Advanced Autonomous Systems drive growth in Army investment budget, FY16 to FY25

Handheld, Manpack and Small Form Fit (HMS) networking tactical radio systems investment grows over 200% from FY16 to FY25

Investment Budget Dollars, FY16 - 25 Investment Budget Velocity by Subsegment, FY16 - 25

Requested (FY21) FYDP (FY22-FY25)Enacted (FY16-FY20)

Adv Autonomous Systems

10%

Dollars

CAG

R

Lethality & Resilience C5ISR Air & Missile Defense Resilient & Agile LogisticsAdvanced Autonomous Systems Space Nuclear Forces

$8.3B

Click Here to Reference the Military Departments Guide

33

34

Budget PrioritiesDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Segment Requested Total

% ChangeRank % of Priority Total

1

2

3

5

9

6

7

10

14

13

4

8

11

15

16

$32.9 B

$18.2 B

$12.4 B

$5.9 B

$869.5 M

$14.3 B

$3.1 B

$4.4 B

$127.3 M

$2.4 B

$8.0 B

$3.0 B

$1.7 B

$60.0 M

$480.2 M

1

2

4

6

13

3

8

7

16

10

5

9

11

18

14

60%

66%

64%

91%

78%

10%

15%

20%

4%

19%

13%

14%

10%

4%

3%

45%

69%

66%

97%

23%

20%

12%

23%

2%

64%

11%

11%

9%

1%

13%

Enacted Total

$41.2 B

$16.7 B

$11.0 B

$9.1 B

$3.5 B

$7.0 B

$3.9 B

$3.5 B

$433.0 M

$875.1 M

$9.2 B

$3.6 B

$1.6 B

$414.8 M

$153.3 M

FY16 - 20 FY16 - 20 FY16 - 20FY21 - 25 FY21 - 25 FY21 - 25 % Change


C5ISR


Resilient & Agile

Logistics

Advanced Autonomous

Systems

Top NDS Modernization Priority Subsegments

Legacy Platforms

C4I

Theater IAMD




ISR

Short-Range Point Air Defense


Unmanned Ground Platforms

Legacy Munitions

Spectrum Dominance

Homeland Missile Defense



20.2%

9.2%

12.7%

34.7%

75.5%

104.9%

19.9%

26.4%

70.6%

174.4%

104.9%

18.9%

4%

85.5%

213.3%

15%

3%

2%

6%

55%

10%

3%

3%

2%

45%

2%

3%

1%

3%

10%


35

Contracting OverviewDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Air & Missile Defense spending increased by $3B between FY17 and FY18 due to obligations for PAC-3

Growth in Nuclear Forces driven by Army-funded activities to support the Nuclear Security Enterprise at Sandia and Y-12

Modernization Priorities by Total Obligation, FY15 - 19

Dollars

CAG

R

Contracts Velocity by Segment, FY15 - 19

Lethality & Resilience C5ISR Air & Missile Defense Resilient & Agile LogisticsAdvanced Autonomous Systems


Space Nuclear Forces

$6.5B $6.1B

$2.9B


36

Contracting PrioritiesDEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Segment # of Congressional Districts

Top Congressional Disctrict by POP Zip

MI-09, MI-10

TX-06, TX-30, TX-33

MD-02

TN-02, TN-03

TX-25, TX-31

TX-06, TX-30, TX-33

AL-05

AZ-02

MD-02

WI-06

NH-01

AL-05

VA-10, VA-11

MD-02

MD-01

78%

88%

53%

33%

60%

15%

9%

17%

62%

25%

4%

2%

17%

5%

6%

418

98

455

44

548

70

43

251

25

112

430

18

340

34

174

409

102

480

57

447

55

36

261

29

114

401

20

308

35

167

275

66

252

37

297

68

41

131

20

70

273

13

214

27

136

248

62

252

49

230

49

40

139

22

71

251

17

186

27

113

% of Subsegment Total

# of Vendors



C5ISR

Resilient & Agile

Logistics

Nuclear Forces

2018

$12.9 B

$5.8 B

$3.2 B

$276.2 M

$1.2 B

$2.5 B

$582.0 M

$1.0 B

$520.1 M

$504.5 M

$637.0 M

$126.6 M

$1.0 B

$38.7 M

$119.2 M

$11.9 B

$6.1 B

$2.9 B

$4.4 B

$290.1 M

$2.7 B

$743.6 M

$1.0 B

$562.0 M

$604.4 M

$605.6 M

$218.9 M

$981.4 M

$26.4 M

$152.2 M

8%

4%

10%

1478%

76%

8%

28%

1%

8%

20%

5%

73%

6%

32%

28%

Total Obligated AmountSubsegment

Legacy Platforms

Theater IAMD

C4I

Weapons


Legacy Munitions


Cyber

Delivery Vehicles & Platforms



Homeland Missile Defense

ISR

NC3

Adv. Materials & Manufacturing

2019 % Change

74%

84%

52%

88%

27%

17%

10%

18%

11%

57%

4%

3%

18%

1%

14%

2019 2019 20192018

Rank

1

2

3

14

5

4

10

8

11

12

9

17

7

19

18

1

2

4

3

13

5

9

7

12

11

10

15

8

20

18

2019 2018 2018 2018


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMYTop Vendors and Contracting Offices

37

Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY18

FY18

67.9%

37.7%

42.4%

49.8%

66.5%

38.9%

96.4%

0.0%

27.8%

57.3%

33.0%

0.0%

0.0%

40.8%

67.3%

82.1%

31.0%

49.8%

69.6%

51.0%

11.5%

0.0%

38%

36.8%

45.7%

0.0%

100.0%

14.5%

32.0%

10.7%

66.5%

44.8%

27.1%

48.5%

88.5%

100.0%

58.7%

63.2%

34.6%

100.0%

0.0%

84.1%

FY19

FY19

57.3%

47.6%

31.5%

42.2%

63.1%

44.0%

60.2%

0.0%

29.1%

55.5%

32.9%

0.0%

0.0%

35.3%

FY18

FY18

520

69

217

968

218

694

84

2

716

218

3840

2

10

1175

FY19

FY19

618

84

203

873

214

402

113

4

523

155

3543

2

21

967

$2.4 B

$1.7 B

$15.9 B

$2.1 B

$596.9 M

$1.4 B

$2.6 B

$2.2 B

$720.1 M

$4.1 B

$8.4 B

$2.4 B

$1.4 B

$4.7 B

1

11

2

1

176

4

2

9

18

6

3

5

1081

3

Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)

Honeywell International Inc. (HON)

Northrop Grumman Corp. (NOC)

0646 AQ TM CONTRACTING TEA - APO

Boeing Co. (BA)

Raytheon Co. (RTN)

General Atomics Inc.

National Nuclear Security Administion1

General Dynamics Corp. (GD)

BAE Systems PLC (BAESY)

ACC-RSA Redstone Arsenal, AL

Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC

M1 Support Services LP

ACC Contracting Centers

Contracting Offices

3.0

5.0

0.3

1.9

0.5

5.1

0.1

11.3

3.4

0.6

1.6

5.6

0.8

2.6

% Point Change Share Obligation


2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2020

2020

2019

2019

Total Contract Obligations


Contract Actions

Contract Actions

% Fixed-Price

% Fixed-Price

% Cost-Plus

% Cost-Plus

% Sole Source

% Sole Source

Click Here to Reference the Military Departments Guide1 NNSA appears as an Army contracting office due to the Army’s work supporting the Nuclear Security Enterprise at Sandia and Y-12.

The Navy’s FY21 PBR prioritizes readiness to fight tonight with existing force structure, in terms of both increasing O&M resources and plugging personnel gaps through end-strength growth. Finding resources for conventional force modernization proves challenging, however, given increases in Defense-Wide pay raises and military retirement cost growth as well as the recapitalization of the sea-based leg of the nuclear triad.

Within the Navy’s investment budget, Nuclear Forces modernization subsegments see fast growth. The Nuclear Delivery Vehicles subsegment is a clear winner, with the Columbia Class submarine’s procurement more than doubling to $4B in FY21 and increasing to $6B by FY25. NC3 RDT&E also grows by 47% from FY20 to FY21. Outside of the nuclear enterprise, the Navy continues to invest in Next-Generation Platforms, which rises from a 17.4% share of the investment budget in FY21 to 21.3% in FY25.

However, the primary storyline for the Navy’s FY21 PBR modernization agenda is that of hard choices. Without topline relief to accommodate Nuclear Forces modernization in particular, FY21 brings reductions in multiple taxonomy segments. Legacy Platforms fall drastically with a $7B (24%) single year reduction from FY20. The Virginia Class submarine is the primary target in FY21, taking a $4B procurement cut that amounts to an almost 50% reduction from FY20. DDG-51 is not far behind, receiving a $2.8B reduction (48%) in FY21. While these reductions in shipbuilding could be interpreted as accepting near-term capacity risk to fund other priorities, both the Block V Virginia SSN and the Flight III DDG-51 are highly capable platforms that arguably could be categorized as next-generation platforms and will form part of the backbone of the fleet for decades to come.

Autonomous Systems also see investment cuts. Unmanned Air Platforms take deep reductions to the MQ-4 Triton and Unmanned Carrier Aviation (UCA) programs for a combined $700M. The MQ-4 budget recovers later

in the FYDP, but reductions to UCA are permanent, indicating that the carrier air wing will remain dominated by manned aircraft.

The FY21 PBR increases Navy RDT&E funding aligned to the NDS Modernization Priorities by nearly $1B in FY21. The additional funding brings enhancements to select emerging technologies: In FY21, Hypersonics doubles, reaching $1B, and emerging technology heavy segments C4I and Spectrum Dominance jump by 13.6% and 9.5%, respectively. This increase, however, is short-lived. In FY22, Navy RDT&E funding aligned to NDS Modernization Priorities drops back to FY20 levels, reach a nadir of $10.4B in FY25—27.6% below FY21 levels.

The Marine Corps components of the Navy’s FY21 PBR indicate that it is beginning a shift called for by the Commandant to reorient the Marine Corps away from crisis response, large-scale amphibious assaults and ground combat to a renewed focus on sea denial and sea control in the Western Pacific. The Marine Corps plans to reduce its end-strength to fund these modernization efforts. The FY21 PBR prioritizes capabilities that enable littoral combat operations in contested environments, including investments in electronic warfare, unmanned systems, ground-based anti-ship missiles, and ground-based air defenses. At the same time, it reduces procurement of F-35Bs and JLTVs compared to FY20 and ramps down legacy systems more suited for ground combat, like tube artillery. Continued growth in the O&M and MILPERS accounts, coupled with the ramping up of the Columbia Class program, will likely put increasing pressure on the Navy’s investment budget, outside of Nuclear Forces, over the FYDP. Without additional funding, the Navy will increasingly face difficult tradeoffs between Modernization Priorities, such as between procuring its next generation of platforms and investing in game-changing emerging technologies.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYDecision Science Insights

38

13

Budget OverviewDEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Navy investment budget decreases $4B FY20 - 21, but steadily increases across the FYDP growing by 8% total

Despite dramatic cuts, Virginia Class Submarine and DDG-51 lead the Navy investment budget


Dollars

Perc

ent C

hang

e



Resilient & Agile Logistics


$24.6B

$25.5B



39

40

Budget PrioritiesDEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY



1

6

3

8

9

2

5

17

11

13

10

4

19

12

16

$116.6 B

$14.8 B

$33.5 B

$6.9 B

$10.0 B

$60.2 B

$13.4 B

$1.2 B

$3.4 B

$1.8 B

$9.4 B

$12.2 B

$27.3 M

$3.2 B

$2.0 B

1

4

3

9

7

2

5

17

11

16

8

6

20

12

15

69%

30%

92%

45%

62%

25%

32%

6%

28%

17%

3%

35%

2%

22%

13%

59%

35%

96%

48%

68%

30%

31%

4%

24%

12%

5%

29%

0%

23%

14%

Enacted Total

$135.5 B

$10.3 B

$16.6 B

$7.0 B

$6.7 B

$48.7 B

$11.2 B

$1.0 B

$4.3 B

$1.8 B

$6.4 B

$12.1 B

$398.3 M

$3.5 B

$1.4 B

FY16 - 20 FY16 - 20FY21 - 25 FY21 - 25 % Change


C5ISR

Nuclear Forces

Resilient & Agile

Logistics



Legacy Platforms

C4I



Theater IAMD


Spectrum Dominance

NC3

Strategic Lift

Theater BMD

Legacy Munitions

ISR

Weapons



14%

42.9%

102.1%

1.5%

48.3%

23.6%

19.1%

20.6%

22.1%

1.5%

48.4%

0.8%

93.1%

6.8%

45.0%

10%

5%

4%

3%

6%

5%

1%

2%

4%

5%

2%

6%

2%

1%

1%


FY16 - 20FY21 - 25

41

Contracting OverviewDEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Advanced Autonomous Systems represents only 1.8% of spending FY15 to FY19

Procurement of E2-D Advanced Hawkeye, key to linking Carrier Battle Groups to distributed naval forces, drove sustained C5ISR spending

Dollars

CAG

R



Resilient & Agile LogisticsResilient & Agile Logistics




42

Contracting PrioritiesDEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Segment Rank # of Congressional Districts


1

6

3

5

8

2

7

10

13

12

4

9

14

18

15

1

3

4

5

6

2

7

8

16

13

10

9

11

17

18

MS-04

FL-08

PA-18

CT-02

AZ-02, AZ-03

TX-12

CT-03

CA-51, CA-52

CA-17, CA-18

KY-03

CT-02

MO-01

AL-01

OK-04, OK-05

NJ-03

43%

40%

67%

76%

53%

43%

28%

21%

19%

24%

8%

24%

11%

5%

10%

50%

50%

59%

89%

62%

42%

21%

25%

6%

25%

3%

19%

15%

5%

6%

552

536

526

88

101

126

253

28

58

19

27

638

179

36

26

502

459

449

68

87

124

189

33

47

26

25

569

151

46

25

277

285

247

72

68

94

101

26

45

19

23

312

86

23

23

246

260

209

54

60

91

94

34

34

24

25

293

69

35

22


# of Vendors



C5ISR

Resilient & Agile

Logistics

Nuclear Forces

2019 2018

$18.0 B

$2.6 B

$3.5 B

$2.9 B

$1.8 B

$17.6 B

$1.8 B

$1.1 B

$705.5 M

$803.6 M

$3.4 B

$1.6 B

$600.7 M

$178.9 M

$324.0 M

$22.6 B

$4.2 B

$3.9 B

$3.7 B

$2.0 B

$18.9 B

$1.8 B

$1.6 B

$237.3 M

$827.4 M

$1.3 B

$1.6 B

$1.0 B

$198.7 M

$183.6 M

26%

61%

11%

29%

16%

7%

1%

51%

66%

3%

61%

1%

69%

11%

43%


Legacy Platforms

ISR



Theater IAMD


Spectrum Dominance

Strategic Lift

Weapons


Advanced Munitions

C4I


NC3

Theater BMD

2019 % Change 2019 2019 20192018 20182018 2018


DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYTop Vendors and Contracting Offices

43

Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY18

FY18

75.1%

75.8%

37%

42.5%

49.7%

82.4%

0.0%

94.5%

56.4%

74.1%

81.9%

67.3%

64.9%

42.6%

51.5%

28.7%

0.0%

16.4%

36.5%

82.6%

0.0%

27.4%

53.2%

50.8%

55.1%

45.6%

61.7%

30.2%

46.8%

70.4%

100.0%

82.5%

58.7%

17.4%

100.0%

72.3%

44.5%

47.3%

41.3%

47.8%

38.3%

68.4%

FY19

FY19

74.8%

69.4%

76.9%

45.1%

59.5%

81.5%

0.0%

97.0%

44.5%

71.4%

78.2%

74.8%

60.9%

32.4%

FY18

FY18

1169

666

27

1778

2038

216

7

397

553

851

1120

605

131

477

FY19

FY19

1174

631

13

1508

1565

184

13

372

618

784

1084

456

128

1836

$7.5 B

$3.7 B

$31.9 B

$4.2 B

$1.6 B

$1.2 B

$8.3 B

$5.8 B

$1.6 B

$2.6 B

$15.7 B

$5.9 B

$1.9 B

$23.1 B

1

3

2

1

3

2

6

11

8

10

4

5

7

25


Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc. (HII)

Bechtel Group Inc.

Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)


United Technologies Corp. (RTX)

Fluor Corp. (FLR)

Strategic Systems Programs

Boeing Co. (BA)

Raytheon Co. (RTN)

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)



U.S. Department of the Navy

Contracting Offices

2.2

0.8

0.5

0.5

1.7

2.8

0.3

0.8

0.7

1.1

1.0

1.1

0.5

1.5



2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions

% Fixed-Price

% Fixed-Price

% Cost-Plus

% Cost-Plus

% Sole Source

% Sole Source


DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCEDecision Science Insights

44

With no topline increase in the FY21 PBR, the Air Force’s effort to invest in modernization and readiness essential for high-intensity warfare relies on internal realignments. The Air Force faces cost growth in both O&M and Military Personnel to fund military pay raises and retirement. It plans to pay for these increases through cuts to Procurement and Military Construction, shifting the remainder to investment in RDT&E.

C4I is one winner within the Air Force FY21 investment budget, which aligns with the Air Force’s emerging concept for operations in a high-intensity warfight, Joint All-Domain Command and Control. Investment in C4I increases over FY20 levels by nearly $100M in FY21 and an additional $800M by FY25. Tradeoffs internal to Air Force platforms clearly evidence a prioritization of manned over unmanned systems. Next-Generation Platforms and Legacy Platforms, both of which consist of manned combat aircraft, are the two best-funded Air Force subsegments. They dwarf funding for Unmanned Air Platforms, which takes a $500M hit from FY20 levels and continues to decrease over the FYDP, bottoming out at $118M—a 91% decrease relative to FY20.

The procurement of the F-15EX drives projected increases in funding for the Legacy Platforms subsegment over the FYDP. The new F-15EX program adds almost $800M in FY21 and continues to grow to $2.2B by FY25. The Next-Generation Platforms subsegment, which includes the F-35, decreases in FY21 by $600M from its peak in FY20 and continues to shrink over the FYDP. While procurement of the F-15EX addresses a critical near-term gap, this investment may reduce the funding available for developing next-generation capabilities and innovative technologies, such as Directed Energy and Hypersonics, that might pay longer term dividends.

With regards to innovation in support of the Air Force’s Modernization Priorities, starting in FY20, RDT&E funding for the Air Force is split nearly evenly between budget activities 6.1 - 6.4 and 6.5 - 6.8. Next-Generation Platform and Nuclear Delivery Vehicles receive the most 6.1 - 6.4 funds, indicating that most research and early development of new capabilities is happening in these two areas. In addition, most grants and academic research support targeted C5ISR and Resilient & Agile Logistics investments.

The FY21 PBR marks the beginning of a significant funding ramp to establish the Space Force as a co-equal Service within the Department of the Air Force. Notably, only the RDT&E and Procurement accounts have formally transitioned to the Space Force; MILPERS and O&M costs migrate to the Space Force over the FYDP. Despite this initial impact to the Air Force’s topline, the FY21 FYDP contains planned end-strength growth in both the Air Force and the Space Force.

Although the space investment topline is a point of emphasis, the FY21 PBR has yet to show a true strategic pivot, as gains in both FY21 and through the FYDP are heavily concentrated in only three space programs: Next Generation Overhead Persistent Infrared satellite, GPS III Follow-On, and the National Security Space Launch programs combine for 65% of the space investment budget. While these three programs are certainly important, concentrating the portfolio around a few high-dollar programs rather than having a more diversified suite of capabilities may suboptimally position the force for high-intensity warfare.

13

Budget OverviewDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

KC-46A procurement largest investment budget line item after F-35

Long-Range Strike Bomber and Next Generation OPIR capture nearly 20% of all Air Force RDT&E funding


30%

Dollars

Perc

ent C

hang

e




$10.2B



45

46

Budget PrioritiesDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE



1

4

3

9

13

2

5

10

12

11

6

8

17

14

15

$56.5 B

$21.7 B

$15.8 B

$10.7 B

$15.1 B

$28.6 B

$11.6 B

$2.0 B

$5.6 B

$3.2 B

$5.2 B

$6.6 B

$1.3 B

$3.1 B

$3.9 B

1

3

4

7

5

2

6

15

9

12

10

8

17

13

11

59%

41%

64%

41%

35%

20%

29%

25%

24%

40%

12%

18%

7%

20%

26%

56%

48%

81%

50%

68%

28%

26%

10%

26%

14%

5%

15%

6%

14%

17%

Enacted Total

$50 B

$15.5 B

$15.8 B

$6.3 B

$3.3 B

$16.9 B

$11.1 B

$6.3 B

$3.7 B

$3.8 B

$10.0 B

$6.7 B

$1.6 B

$3.0 B

$2.4 B

FY16 - 20 FY16 - 20FY21 - 25 FY21 - 25 % Change


Space

C5ISR

Resilient & Agile

Logistics

NuclearForces



Space ISR & PNT


C4I


Legacy Platforms

Lift Vehicles

Strategic Lift

Cyber

Weapons

Legacy Munitions

SATCOM


ISR

NC3

12.9%

40.5%

0.4%

70.3%

358.2%

69.3%

4.2%

68.5%

50.5%

15.4%

47.9%

2.1%

20.8%

0.7%

59.5%

3%

7%

17%

9%

33%

8%

3%

15%

2%

26%

7%

3%

1%

6%

9%


FY16 - 20FY21 - 25

47

Contracting OverviewDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Air Force spending grows 54% from FY16 to FY19

Space obligations increase by $2B from FY18 to FY19 due to increased spending on Lift Vehicles and Next Generation OPIR contracts

Dollars

Perc

ent C

hang

e

Contracts Velocity by Segment, FY15 - 19Lethality & Resilience C5ISR Air & Missile Defense Resilient & Agile LogisticsAdvanced Autonomous Systems Space Nuclear Forces


$13.0B


$7.0B


48

Contracting PrioritiesDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE



2018

$8.2 B

$2.5 B

$2.8 B

$3.3 B

$2.8 B

$4.1 B

$1.3 B

$1.1 B

$2.2 B

$119.8 M

$2.7 B

$1.7 B

$1.0 B

$147.5 M

$1.1 M

$7.1 B

$2.3 B

$3.6 B

$3.4 B

$3.1 B

$2.3 B

$1.5 B

$1.9 B

$2.4 B

$182.4 M

$2.8 B

$1.0 B

$1.4 B

$145.7 M

$804.1 K

1

7

4

3

5

2

10

11

8

20

6

9

12

18

21

1

7

2

3

4

8

10

9

6

18

5

12

11

19

21

MO-01

VA-10, VA-11

CO-04, CO-06

WA-07, WA-09

CA-50, CA-52

MO-01

MA-05, MA-06

CO-06

IN-07

OH-10

TX-12

TX-12

CA-33

NJ-03

OK-03, OK-05

52%

37%

53%

57%

96%

25%

19%

20%

39%

4%

17%

25%

18%

3%

0%

50%

37%

49%

56%

94%

16%

24%

26%

40%

6%

20%

16%

20%

2%

0%

418

385

33

89

84

47

94

76

131

113

121

250

65

315

9

361

421

36

90

79

37

80

90

107

151

114

214

64

235

6

278

209

26

66

77

52

77

97

104

73

72

173

56

150

12

235

219

31

70

77

40

69

91

101

95

65

141

48

138

9

14%

7%

25%

3%

9%

43%

16%

80%

10%

52%

3%

44%

51%

1%

29%


# of Vendors


C5ISR

Space

Resilient & Agile

Logistics


Legacy Platforms

C4I

Lift Vehicles



Legacy Munitions

Spectrum Dominance

Space ISR & PNT

Strategic Lift



ISR

SATCOM


Unmanned Ground Platforms

20192019 % Change 2019 2019 20192018 20182018 2018

Advanced Autonomous

Systems


DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCETop Vendors and Contracting Offices

49

Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY19

FY18

FY18

36.7%

37.2%

30.2%

27.5%

40.3%

85.7%

49.5%

54.9%

38.8%

41.8%

40.2%

92.3%

19.5%

32%

40.0%

37.8%

49.1%

50.2%

31.8%

56.4%

39.7%

17.8%

32.3%

79.1%

51.6%

29.7%

71.1%

52.3%

46.6%

55.8%

41.8%

41.1%

60.0%

28.2%

60.3%

61.5%

54.2%

20.4%

42.9%

69.1%

24.1%

36.8%

FY19

FY19

30.5%

35.0%

34.5%

27.6%

28.1%

64.1%

41.4%

38.5%

29.0%

35.1%

34.2%

90.3%

21.5%

30.7%

FY18

FY18

1516

720

430

2863

765

42

97

574

1063

249

1690

181

359

412

FY19

FY19

1190

622

397

4470

723

39

58

454

983

191

1394

175

353

277

$4.0 B

$1.1 B

$13.2 B

$1.5 B

$398.4 M

$1.3 B

$8.1 B

$1.8 B

$440.9 M

$2.0 B

$9.3 B

$2.9 B

$750.3 M

$12.7 B

2

3

2

1

4

1

5

11

10

8

4

7

6

5


Raytheon Co. (RTN)

L3Harris Technologies Inc. (LHX)

U.S. Department of the Air Force

Boeing Co. (BA)

United Launch Alliance LLC (UTX)

General Electric Co. (GE)

Wright-Patterson AFB


United Technologies Corp. (RTX)

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center



AFLCMC - Robins

Contracting Offices

5.7

3.7

0.3

14.8

5.2

0.8

0.1

0.0

1.5

0.0

7.5

0.4

0.3

1.1



2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions

% Fixed-Price

% Fixed-Price

% Cost-Plus

% Cost-Plus

% Sole Source

% Sole Source


The COVID-19 pandemic has caused massive economic disruptions across the United States. Small businesses, including those that are critical to the National Security Innovation Base (NSIB) and DoD’s NDS-aligned modernization efforts, are especially vulnerable to disruption due to greater sensitivity to cash flow and credit constraints. Because of this vulnerability, it is vital to understand how small businesses support modernization efforts, as well as the potential for disruption based on the locations of businesses in relation to the spread of the virus.

Govini analyzed DoD small business contracts across FY16-19 in order to help enable such an understanding. This included mapping the place of performance of small business contracts against COVID-19 related risks to illuminate the locations, vendors, and technologies most acutely at risk.1 Leveraging the Govini NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy, the analysis examines three technology areas to determine which modernization efforts are most at risk of disruption. The three technology areas—legacy systems, next-generation systems, and leap-ahead technologies—correspond to short, medium, and long-term modernization efforts, respectively.2

All three technology areas are exposed to risks from COVID-19 through the small business vendor base. Leap-ahead technologies are especially vulnerable as the role of small businesses is substantially higher. The short-term disruption of COVID-19 may have impacts that are felt years, or even decades, into the future if vendors developing revolutionary technologies are hampered or put out of business by the COVID-19 crisis.

DoD and the broader U.S. government are launching numerous initiatives to support small businesses, but to optimize the impact of these measures, DoD should target its support to those small businesses that are working on priority programs, technologies, and capabilities.

Legacy SystemsLegacy Systems, which include the Legacy Platforms and Legacy Munitions subsegments, are primarily delivered by traditional DoD vendors. However, the importance of small businesses in these subsegments should not be overlooked as they often perform critical roles within the supply chain.

Small businesses received less than 2% of FY16-FY19 contract obligations related to legacy systems but make up over 40% of all unique vendors. Though contracts may be small in terms of obligations, small businesses control a sizable portion of the links across these supply chains.

Wayne County, MI, which has one of the highest concentrations of small businesses involved in legacy systems, also has the highest COVID-19 risk in the state, meaning that those small businesses face greater risk of disruption.3

Next-Generation SystemsNext-Generation Systems include the Next-Generation Platforms and Advanced Munitions subsegments, along with the four Unmanned Platforms subsegments. Within this technology area, small businesses are most prominent in RDT&E contracts that support next-generation systems development.

Like Legacy Systems, small businesses made up less than 2% of total obligations FY16-FY19, although this proportion was more than twice as high for RDT&E contracts.

Unmanned Platforms had higher total obligations in small business contracts compared to other subsegments. This was especially true for Unmanned Ground Platforms, which awarded small businesses almost 15% of spending FY16-FY19.

Dayton, OH had the second highest concentration of small business obligations for next-generation systems: over $150M FY16-19. Although Dayton is not a high COVID-19 risk area, it borders the highest risk county in the state. 50

COVID-19 Risks for Small Businesses in the National Security Innovation Base (NSIB)


Leap-Ahead TechnologiesWhile Next-Generation Platforms consist of newer versions of familiar weapons systems, such as manned fighters, leap-ahead technologies encompass emerging technology areas that promise revolutionary changes in warfighting. These include the Artificial Intelligence, Advanced Materials & Manufacturing, Directed Energy, and Hypersonics subsegments.

Small businesses developing leap-ahead technologies received over 14% of total obligations FY16 - 19, nearly ten times the

amount in each of the other two technology groups. Even Directed Energy, which had the lowest proportion of small business spending within the leap-ahead technologies subsegments, was six times the proportion of legacy systems.

Southern California is a key region for small businesses developing leap-ahead technologies. Over $100M FY16 - 19 went to the region, which is experiencing medium to high COVID-19 risk, including in three high-risk counties bordering Los Angeles County.

51

COVID-Adjusted Risk for All NDS Modernization Taxonomy Subsegments

Data in map as of April 20, 2020

1COVID-19 risk is assessed as of the crest of the first wave of the virus, which occurred in late April. It takes into account the number of tests being conducted, the number of hospital beds available, and the population weighted by total obligations for each county. 2These areas were created by grouping together the relevant segments and subsegments from the NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy.3Risk for each location is based on the obligated amounts and COVID-19 related risk factors and is relative to the contracts included in the analysis.

52

DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

DARPA funding jumped by 15% in the FY21 PBR relative to FY16 - 20 and holds steady between $3.6B and $3.7B in FY21 - 25, demonstrating DoD’s commitment to maintaining a technological edge

Cyber Security, Advanced Aerospace Systems, and Math & Computer Science programs received highest funding; Network-Centric War-fare Technology program funding declines starting in FY23

YoY Funding by Investment Account, FY16 - 25 Velocity by Budget Account, FY16 - 25

Dollars

3%

1%

2%

CAG

R

Total Investment Funding by Percent Investment Account

Click Here to Reference the DoD Components Guide

53

DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Point Change Obligation Share


% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

1

6

2

2

1

41

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

6.2%

95.6%

100.0%

100.0%

80.8%

2.5%

0.9%

0.0%

0.0%

83.8%

92.9%

100%

0.0%

1.9%

3.0%

13.7%

12.2%

0.0%

6.1%

88.7%

92.4%

58.5%

48.8%

97.4%

73.4%

FY19

FY19

9.8%

3.4%

21.8%

2.3%

13.8%

7.1%

65.5%

0.0%

18.9%

7.6%

8.2%

29.3%

0.9%

20.1%

FY18

FY18

4.5%

1.8%

11.6%

1.0%

10.7%

10.4%

41.0%

0.0%

8.5%

0.0%

9.1%

40.5%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

183

87

119

390

80

113

29

164

53

66

1174

123

117

229

FY18

FY18

221

110

147

504

121

125

39

2

82

76

1454

237

106

2

$80.7 M

$60.4 M

$727.4 M

$60.9 M

$47.8 M

$147.1 M

$89.8 M

$63.4 M

$48.9 M

$221.3 M

$188.4 M

$68.7 M

$51.6 M

$265.1 M

3

7

9

11

17

5

4

18

Raytheon Co. (RTN)




SRI International


Boeing Co. (BA)

Systems Technology Research LLC

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp. (BAH)

Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory LLC

Top Contracting Offices

1.2

0.1

2.9

1.5

0.2

0.8

0.3

12.4

3.0

0.3

6.7

0.6

0.7

8.1

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2020

2020

2019

2019

Contract Obligations


Contract Actions

Contract Actions

FY19 Contract Pricing Type


AFRL RIK - ROME

DARPA, Contracts Management Office

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

U.S. Department of the Navy


DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

54

DISA funding decreased by 30% from Enacted to Requested toplines due to reduced funding for Senior Leadership Enterprise, Defense Information Systems Network, and Joint Regional Security Stacks programs

Starting in FY20, Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) was the highest funded DISA program demonstrating importance of AI to future war planning

Velocity by Budget Account, FY16 - 25

Dollars

CAG

R

RDT&E Procurement

Procurement

Procurement


YoY Funding by Investment Account, FY16 - 25


DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

55

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

2

4

29

1

2

3

90.3%

77.8%

100.0%

98.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

1.3%

60.0%

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

92.3%

100.0%

90.3%

96.9%

83.3%

99.5%

0.0%

0.0%

1.8%

2.5%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

11.1%

33.3%

38.7%

10%

0.0%

0.0%

53.2%

0.0%

18.2%

23.8%

0.0%

0.0%

36.5%

FY18

FY18

0.0%

0.0%

57.1%

39.5%

3.6%

0.0%

0.0%

58.4%

0.0%

6.3%

36.1%

0.0%

0.0%

41.3%

FY19

FY19

31

9

21

551

20

67

16

5098

13

11

547

160

6

197

FY18

FY18

32

9

14

939

28

61

13

5830

7

16

402

228

23

213

$54.8 M

$27.7 M

$461.5 M

$33.0 M

$16.1 M

$41.3 M

$75.1 M

$40.3 M

$17.7 M

$46.8 M

$110.4 M

$44.1 M

$21.1 M

$184.5 M

1

51

12

3

10

8

6

5

Perspecta Inc. (PRSP)

Oracle Corp. (ORCL)

DDC IT Services LLC

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. (HPE)

Verizon Business Network Services Inc. (VZ)

Mythics Inc.

World Wide Technology Holding Co. LLC

Unisys Corp. (UIS)

Veritas Capital Fund Management LLC

Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO)


4.8

0.3

2.1

33.1

0.6

5.0

0.2

0.8

4.4

0.1

34.5

0.6

4.6

2.1

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



DITCO-Scott: IT Contracting (PL83)

DITCO-Scott (PL8)

Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)

DISA White House Communications Agency (WHCA)

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

56

DSCA investment budget declines by 40% from FY20 to FY21 and again from FY21 to FY22 before stabilizing around $4M for the remainder of the FYDP

Highest funded program, Global Theater Security Cooperation Management Information Systems (G-TSCMIS), experiences steady decline after FY20

Velocity by Budget Account, FY16 - 25

Dollars

CAG

R

RDT&E Procurement

Procurement

$1.60M

$60.20M

$6.29M

$17.71M


YoY Funding by Investment Account, FY16 - 25


DEFENSE SECURITY COOPERATION AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

57

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

2

4

23

3

4

1

28.6%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

71.4%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

85.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

98.2%

0.0%

100.0%

80.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

14.3%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

23.8%

100.0%

0.0%

35.9%

0.0%

100.0%

34.8%

FY18

FY18

0.0%

100.0%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

21.5%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

25.6%

FY19

FY19

7

5

3

5

1

2

1

42

2

5

167

3

1

46

FY18

FY18

2

2

1

2

1

325

10

1

4

3

78

$6.2 M

$1.9 M

$40.8 M

$2.0 M

$1.8 M

$3.1 M

$10.6 M

$3.2 M

$1.8 M

$9.2 M

$13.3 M

$5.8 M

$1.9 M

$13.3 M

13

9

16

137

5


Information Gateways Inc.

SHR Consulting Group LLC

Tetra Tech Inc. (TTEK)

Vysnova Partners Inc.

Tier 1 Performance Solutions LLC

Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC)

Blackstone Consulting Inc.

Shoulder 2 Shoulder Inc.

NANA Regional Corporation Inc.


5.9

0.2

1.6

5.9

0.9

33.4

1.2

47.7

2.8

0.3

2.6

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



FAS Office of Assisted Acquisition Services - FEDSIM

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)

Washington Headquarters Service (WHS)

DSCA George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

58

DTRA investment budget drops 14% FY20 to FY21 but sees modest increases across FYDP

Procurement is only 7.5% of DTRA investment budget; Counter-IED Technology and Other Major Equipment make up the majority of planned acquisition


Dollars

CAG

R

RDT&E Procurement

ProcurementProcurement



$604.49M

$397.10M $45.56M$12.75M

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

59

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

1

3

4

2

1

11

1.2%

2.8%

25.0%

0.0%

97.1%

91.7%

75.0%

100.0%

0.0%

2.7%

25.6%

4.5%

89.4%

97.3%

74.4%

90.9%

3.0%

0.0%

34.6%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

97%

63.6%

58.6%

95.3%

100%

100.0%

FY19

FY19

31.6%

38.9%

0.0%

0.0%

33.0%

21.6%

2.6%

31.8%

36.4%

0.0%

34.4%

4.7%

0.0%

0.0%

FY18

FY18

35.6%

22.9%

0.0%

0.0%

23.0%

32.4%

29.4%

20.0%

32.6%

0.0%

32.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

171

36

28

3

94

37

39

22

33

11

1554

43

13

4

FY18

FY18

180

35

31

4

113

34

17

5

43

1

1669

48

18

3

$65.1 M

$31.9 M

$887.9 M

$38.6 M

$24.4 M

$6.8 M

$84.8 M

$54.3 M

$28.4 M

$9.2 M

$102.7 M

$60.2 M

$28.9 M

$12.6 M

2

5

12

22

6

344

7

8

Applied Research Associates Inc.


BVH Inc.

Leidos Holdings Inc. (LDOS)


Teksynap Corp.

AECOM Technology Corp. (ACM)

Culmen International LLC

Valiant Integrated Services LLC

PAE Holding Corp. (PAE)


0.6

1.0

2.7

1.5

0.6

0.5

1.1

0.8

3.2

3.4

3.2

0.4

1.8

0.5

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



FAS Office of Assisted Acquisition Services - FEDSIM

US Department of the Air Force

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

ACC-APG Aberdeen - Edgewood

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

60

MDA funding peaked in FY18 at $10.8B and has steadily declined to $8.6B in the FY21 request; FYPD projects moderate planned growth to $9.7B by FY25

Next-Generation Interceptor and Ground-Based Midcourse Defense systems top MDA funding


Dollars

CAG

R

RDT&E Procurement

ProcurementProcurement



$1.46B

MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCYComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

61

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

1

4

10

2

1

4

18.9%

23.2%

73.3%

4.1%

78.9%

75.3%

26.7%

94.5%

4.8%

3.6%

10.4%

17.3%

93.8%

95.4%

79.1%

0.0%

15.3%

0.0%

28.6%

0.0%

12.1%

25.0%

66.1%

100.0%

67.1%

92.1%

87.9%

25.0%

FY19

FY19

34.1%

25.5%

23.3%

11.9%

13.7%

0.0%

4.5%

0.0%

41.5%

1.4%

32.2%

25.4%

42.4%

0.0%

FY18

FY18

30.7%

11.8%

18.8%

5.7%

3.2%

0.0%

2.1%

0.0%

44.1%

6.1%

27.9%

28.8%

52.8%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

555

267

30

293

146

196

67

52

431

277

3760

63

33

4

FY18

FY18

574

390

32

418

157

154

94

40

544

263

3831

104

53

1

$1.0 B

$163.6 M

$8.3 B

$246.8 M

$72.0 M

$22.8 M

$1.2 B

$311.3 M

$89.3 M

$23.6 M

$4.3 B

$373.2 M

$108.1 M

$359.4 M

2

5

8

9

3

7

6

27



Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc. (AJRD)

Boeing Co. (BA)

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (JEC)


Raytheon Co. (RTN)


Parsons Corp. (PSN)



17.3

0.2

0.4

0.2

10.3

1.0

0.4

0.1

9.1

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.3

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



MDA - Colorado Springs Location

DOT MARITIME ADMIN - OAKLAND

Missile Defense Agency (MDA)

AFLCMC - Peterson

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMANDComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

62

SOCOM investment budget drops 10% FY20 to FY21 and hovers between $2.8B and $3.1B across FYDP

RDT&E represents only 21% of SOCOM investment budget and is largely driven by programs outside the NDS Modernization Priorities


Dollars

CAG

R

RDT&E Procurement

Procurement

Procurement



UNITED STATES SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMANDComponent and Vendor Benchmarks

63

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Sourced

% Sole Sourced

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

1

15

10

3

2

1

36.5%

96.9%

51.9%

48.8%

50.4%

3.1%

0.0%

10.6%

6.7%

33.7%

0.0%

30.4%

93.3%

42.6%

0.0%

25.0%

14.7%

100.0%

65.2%

66.7%

6.5%

1.7%

38.2%

0.0%

25.8%

23.8%

0.0%

98.3%

FY19

FY19

16.8%

43.8%

0.0%

6.6%

6.2%

19.8%

0.0%

26.1%

4.4%

100.0%

22.3%

22.6%

0.0%

0.6%

FY19

FY19

137

32

81

686

193

101

11

92

68

2

555

84

46

176

$119.5 M

$51.0 M

$705.1 M

$63.4 M

$25.1 M

$102.9 M

$163.9 M

$70.4 M

$29.8 M

$216.9 M

$483.4 M

$112.5 M

$31.7 M

$406.5 M

2

5

30

3

7

4

4

Boeing Co. (BA)

Leonardo SPA (FINMY)

Yorktown Systems Group Inc.



KBR Inc. (KBR)


Palantir Technologies Inc.




16.2

6.3

0.4

18.4

2.2

1.8

38.0

0.1

0.5

18.0

2.5

1.0

1.4

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



United States Special Operations Command

USSOCOM Headquarters Directorate of Procurement

USSOCOM Technical Applications Contracting Office

Special Operations Forces (SOF) Support Activity

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

FY18

FY18

152

35

71

303

135

128

1651

65

3

593

163

25

119

FY18

FY18

24.3%

31.4%

0.0%

9.9%

11.9%

26.6%

20.2%

6.2%

100.0%

23.1%

18.4%

0.0%

0.0%




64

Hypersonics Supply Chain Vulnerability to Foreign Influence

Hypersonics is a critical technology area that could prove crucial to the future of high-intensity warfighting. Great power competitors are, therefore, aggressively investing in its development. They may also pursue opportunities to benefit from—or compromise—hypersonics development by their rivals. The risk of supply chain infiltration by foreign adversaries to hypersonic technology exists at deeper levels than are typically visible by the DoD and prime contractors. Moreover, these threats may be present in the supply chains for other emerging technology areas that are critical for the future of high-intensity warfare. DoD should adopt supply chain risk management technologies to surface otherwise unknown dangers and take mitigation actions that ensure the secure development of hypersonic systems and other emerging technologies.

Govini assessed the supply chains of seven top prime contractors in the Hypersonics subsegment of the NDS Modernization Priorities Taxonomy. The supply chains were analyzed to identify the extent to which core sectors of hypersonic-enabling products and materials are being sourced from Chinese suppliers. These core sectors include alloys, semiconductors, propulsion components, and advanced electronic components. Measuring the prevalence of Chinese suppliers within these vendors’ supply chains can illuminate threats among specific contractors and at specific levels in the supply chain.

The analysis surfaces vulnerability to Chinese infiltration—where China may have opportunities to jeopardize the development of hypersonics through industrial espionage, transfers of technology, or providing unreliable components. Queuing these vulnerabilities among mission-

critical contractors enables the defense community to ensure that the intellectual property and performance of hypersonic systems are not compromised.

Overall, Chinese suppliers make up a low share of suppliers in the core sectors that supply the top hypersonics contractors. Four of the seven companies analyzed have no Chinese suppliers for core technologies in the tier 1 supplier base. This suggests that hypersonic technology contractors have done their due diligence to ensure that they are sourcing from trustworthy partners. Of the seven companies analyzed, only two demonstrate some reliance on Chinese suppliers—but only at 4% of tier 1 suppliers. Some level of Chinese suppliers for these two companies at tier 1 is not surprising, as both have sizable non-defense business units that may source components from China. However, these vendors and DoD should be judicious in ensuring that the components making it onto hypersonic systems are not sourced from competitor nations.

By tier 3 of the supply chain, average exposure to Chinese suppliers jumps to nearly 10%. Exposure continues to increase through tier 5 of the supply chain to roughly 11% across the companies analyzed. By tier 5, vendors no longer have varying levels of reliance on Chinese suppliers, and the characteristics of their supply chains begin to look more similar to one another. This indicates that contractors are likely sharing common suppliers at lower levels of their networks. Vulnerability to foreign influence is generally greater at lower levels of the supply chain due to decreased visibility of where component parts originate. That vulnerability is compounded in the case of hypersonic technology as the share of Chinese suppliers is higher at those lower levels.


65

To ensure the secure development and performance of hypersonic systems, DoD must implement a robust technological approach for detecting vulnerabilities in the supply chain. DoD should prioritize mitigation efforts by evaluating which vendors are most likely to be compromised and the ways in which those vulnerabilities may be exploited. DoD has limited visibility into the deeper tiers of its supply

chain, and in the case of hypersonics, examining only the first tier of prime contractors’ supply chains does not reveal the presence of existing threats. DoD’s ability to monitor and mitigate exposure to foreign influence will improve by adopting solutions that surface potential foreign infiltration at deeper levels of the supply chain.

Hypersonics Supply Chain Risk Vulnerability to Foreign Influence by Tier

Perc

ent C

hine

se S

uppl

iers

5%

0%

10%

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5

Each circle in the chart above represents a prime contractor for hypersonic systems and its reliance on Chinese suppliers for hypersonic-enabling technology at a given tier. A higher percentage of Chinese suppliers indicates an increased level of risk for hypersonic-enabling components.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

66

1

2

3

1

2

3

27.0%1 $29.2 B 5.8%Science

2 $5.9 B 5.6%Nuclear Energy

17.1%1 $26.4 B 10.4%Defense Environmental Cleanup

2 $5.5 B 32.0%Other Defense Activities

55.2%1 $81.4 B 55.7%Weapons Activities

2 $10.6 B 7.2%Defense Nuclear NonproliferationNational Nuclear Security Administration

Energy Programs

Environmental and Other Defense Activities

Rank Bureau % Share Agency Budget

Budget Account Rank Budget Account

FY21-FY25

FY21- 25 FY21 - 25FY21- 25FY16 - FY20

36.9%

19.4%

41.3%

FY16 - 20 % Change

Account Budget

DOE’s funding dropped $4.2B from FY20 to FY21 due to a decrease in energy and environmental programs

The National Nuclear Security Administration share of DOE budget increased 43.8% from FY16-20 to FY21-25 to sustain and modernize the nuclear stockpile

Click Here to Reference the U.S. Interagency Guide

Year-Over-Year Budget, FY16 - 25 FY21 Budget Request Dollars by Bureau, FY16 - 25

Requested (FY22-25)

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

67

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Source

% Sole Source

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

13

1

11

2

1

3

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

52.6%

100.0%

97.1%

100.0%

32.6%

0.0%

0.0%

2.6%

23.8%

100.0%

100.0%

86.8%

56.3%

0.0%

0.0%

42.7%

0.0%

0.0%

51.0%

100.0%

100.0%

18.2%

100.0%

100.0%

46.2%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

36.1%

0.0%

0.0%

89.5%

62.1%

0.0%

0.0%

44.7%

0.0%

100.0%

21.3%

FY18

FY18

0.0%

6.3%

0.0%

39.3%

0.0%

0.8%

80.0%

60.3%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

100.0%

32.4%

FY19

FY19

21

35

61

819

99

160

38

256

69

20

1484

52

18

286

FY18

FY18

4

32

81

921

100

249

45

282

75

19

1695

61

17

312

$2.5 B

$1.8 B

$8.9 B

$2.0 B

$973.2 M

$2.2 B

$2.9 B

$2.1 B

$1.2 B

$3.4 B

$3.2 B

$2.5 B

$1.4 B

$4.5 B

10

4

9

12

3

6

7

5

Triad National Security LLC

Honeywell International Inc. (HON)

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC

Fluor Corp. (FLR)

AECOM Technology Corp. (ACM)

State Of California

Battelle Memorial Institute Inc.

Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC

UT-Battelle LLC

UChicago Argonne LLC


9.1

2.3

1.1

1.5

6.4

0.4

0.1

1.3

0.8

0.5

7.3

1.1

0.4

1.5

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



Office of Science ISC - Oak Ridge Office

Office of Science ISC - Chicago Office

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

DOE - Savannah River Operations Office

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

68

2

3

1

1

2

3

1 $41.9 B 12%Operations and Support

2 $10.1 B 18.4%Retired Pay15.4%

1 $28.3 B 71.5%Disaster Relief Fund

2 $12.4 B 2.7%Federal Assistance36.2%

1 $82.8 B 21.8%Operations and Support

2 $11.4 B 45.2%Procurement, Construction, and Improvements20.8%U.S. Customs and Border Protection

United States Coast Guard

Federal Emergency Management Agency



FY21-FY25

FY16 - FY20

% Change

Account Budget

Delayed funding for a series of disasters in 2017 caused the DHS budget to peak in FY18 at $114.9B, subsequently declining 42.3% in FY21 before stabilizing around $68B for the rest of the FYDP

U.S. Customs and Border Protection budget increased 20.9% from FY16-20 to FY21-25 with a 45.2% increase in Procurement, Construction, and Improvements



18.4%

16.9%

28.5%

FY21- 25 FY21 - 25FY21- 25FY16 - 20

Requested (FY22-25)

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

69

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Source

% Sole Source

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

18

4

10

3

1

39

94.3%

55.0%

70.8%

94.5%

0.0%

0.0%

13.8%

1.3%

69.3%

63.9%

83.6%

73.3%

3.6%

11.9%

0.0%

2.6%

96.5%

100.0%

81.7%

15.6%

71.1%

93.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

98.1%

0.0%

9.2%

47.0%

19.9%

31.7%

21.8%

40.8%

34.8%

70.2%

28.1%

13.3%

1.7%

30.2%

FY18

FY18

88.1%

2.5%

12.8%

46.5%

22.8%

25.3%

29.3%

21.6%

22.4%

59.7%

31.3%

18.3%

2.9%

34.1%

FY19

FY19

53

860

65

2106

563

202

225

2174

141

84

3560

90

350

979

FY18

FY18

67

999

86

2256

701

281

208

913

143

67

3822

93

205

1308

$511.7 M

$314.0 M

$1.9 B

$337.8 M

$233.5 M

$1.4 B

$640.3 M

$352.2 M

$283.1 M

$1.4 B

$905.1 M

$418.6 M

$292.3 M

$1.7 B

1

2

11

25

5

8

12

5


Securitas AB (SECU-B)




Deloitte LLP

The Geo Group Inc. (GEO)

Bollinger Shipyards LLC


Constellis Holdings LLC


4.1

0.1

0.2

1.9

1.3

0.7

0.2

7.8

0.9

0.0

0.2

0.6

0.6

1.3

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



USCG Office of Contract Operations

US Customs & Border Protection (CBP)

Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

ICE ERO Detention Management

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

70

1

2

3

1

2

3

1 $49.9 B 12.5%Salaries and Expenses

2 $110.0 M 94.4%Construction24.6%

1 $38.1 B 6.3%Salaries and Expenses

2 $0.0 100%Commissary Funds & Federal Prisons 19.8%

25.5%

19.4%

27.9%1 $11.9 B 11.7%Salaries and Expenses, United States Attorneys

2 $10.7 B 69.7%Victims Compensation Fund26.9%Legal Activities and U.S. Marshals

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Federal Prison System



FY21-FY25

FY16 - FY20

% Change

Account Budget

DOJ budget increased 2.5% from FY20 to FY21 and remains nearly constant through FY25 with less than a 2% change each year

Legal Activities and U.S. Marshals demonstrate the largest growth within DOJ with an 8.3% increase in budget with the Victims Compensation Fund budget account increasing 69.7%


$1.7B


FY21- 25 FY21 - 25FY21- 25FY16 - 20

Requested (FY22-25)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICEAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

71

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Source

% Sole Source

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

2

25

4

2

1

3

91.4%

100.0%

39.8%

74.3%

0.0%

0.0%

4.8%

1%

100.0%

100.0%

44.5%

52.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

35.8%

100.0%

100.0%

44.7%

44.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

60.7%

53.2%

34.9%

43.9%

31.3%

48.0%

26.5%

36.3%

11.1%

8.5%

35.3%

18.6%

21.4%

50.3%

FY18

FY18

74.4%

63.9%

34.8%

46.1%

33.4%

47.0%

34.0%

39.4%

0.0%

6.6%

35.2%

12.0%

14.2%

50.5%

FY19

FY19

140

660

83

7558

367

2145

155

2442

9

612

38661

2737

257

6268

FY18

FY18

121

1123

69

8911

293

2463

188

2535

1

843

60991

4673

246

6021

$257.4 M

$108.0 M

$2.4 B

$104.2 M

$103.8 M

$757.2 M

$336.0 M

$130.1 M

$105.1 M

$889.4 M

$411.6 M

$150.2 M

$107.3 M

$1.7 B

1

8

5

11

19

7

4

CoreCivic Inc. (CXW)

Krueger International Inc.

Accenture PLC (ACN)

The Geo Group Inc. (GEO)

Naphcare Inc.


Hensel Phelps Construction Co.


McKesson Corp. (MCK)



1.3

1.3

0.5

0.3

0.5

0.2

1.2

0.8

3.4

0.2

3.4

0.4

0.2

1.7

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Justice Management Division (JMD)

Federal Prison System, DoJ

U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE, USMS - LANDOVER Office Name

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




DEPARTMENT OF STATEAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

72

2

1

3

1

2

3

27.5%1 $30.0 B 31.9%Bilateral Economic Assistance

2 $5.0 B 24.8%Int’l Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement

7.6%1 $5.4 B 38.9%Contributions for Int’l Peacekeeping Activities

2 $4.8 B 32%Contributions to International Organizations

61.9%1 $42.5 B 4.1%Diplomatic Programs

2 $20.6 B 188.7%Consular and Border Security Programs

42.1%

9.6%

45.3%Administration of Foreign Affairs

Other

International Organizations and Conferences



FY21-FY25

FY16 - FY20

% Change

Account Budget

DOS budget decreased by 25.7% from FY20 to FY21 and stabilized around $27.0B for the rest of the requested budget; Bilateral Economic Assistance saw the largest decrease at 31.9%

Administration of Foreign Affairs saw a 10.6% increase in budget, with Consular and Border Security Programs budget increasing 188.7%



FY21- 25 FY21 - 25FY21- 25FY16 - 20

Requested (FY22-25)

DEPARTMENT OF STATEAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

73

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Source

% Sole Source

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

1

5

12

4

1

3

100.0%

48.6%

21.3%

72.8%

0.0%

0.0%

78.7%

0.0%

65.3%

26.3%

92.4%

99.8%

12.8%

10.5%

0.0%

0.0%

67.6%

100.0%

82.2%

94.9%

3.2%

65.0%

22.2%

0.0%

0.6%

0.1%

0.0%

0.1%

FY19

FY19

3.6%

27.9%

0.0%

65.3%

20.2%

28.4%

12.1%

15.7%

51.9%

1.5%

30.5%

25.8%

46.0%

57.4%

FY18

FY18

2.7%

49.3%

0.0%

46.4%

20.5%

34.8%

8.1%

28.6%

38.0%

4.8%

32.6%

29.4%

41.3%

63.4%

FY19

FY19

56

179

75

961

337

95

66

1124

108

67

50542

20101

63

1150

FY18

FY18

74

215

26

938

435

112

62

1011

137

63

40719

33035

75

1033

$558.5 M

$248.8 M

$9.2 B

$289.2 M

$184.3 M

$57.3 M

$652.9 M

$304.3 M

$189.9 M

$78.1 M

$840.1 M

$337.4 M

$211.3 M

$106.6 M

2

6

9

10

3

55

4

2

B.L. Harbert Holdings LLC

CGI Inc. (GIB)

AAR Corp. (AIR)


Constellis Holdings LLC



Caddell Construction Co.

Miscellaneous Foreign Contractors

The Day & Zimmermann Group Inc.


4.8

0.2

0.6

0.2

0.9

0.3

0.3

0.2

2.0

2.3

3.4

0.3

0.0

0.4

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



ACQUISITIONS - FSI - WASHINGTON

ACQUISITIONS - RPSO FRANKFURT

US Department of State (DOS)

ACQUISITIONS - INL - WASHINGTON

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATIONAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

74

11 100%3 $20.9 B 10.9%LEO and Spaceflight Operations

4 $15.1 B 7.2%Safety, Security and Mission Services100%

5 $7.9 B 89.6%Exploration Technology

6 $4.1 B 17.4%Aeronautics

1 $43.8 B 81.1%Deep Space Exploration Systems

2 $31.5 B 0.1%Science

National Aeronautics and Space Administration



FY21-FY25

FY16 - FY20

% Change

Account Budget

NASA budget increased 11.9% from FY20 to FY21 and remains around $25.0B for the rest of the requested budget with Exploration Technology increasing 89.6%

Deep Space Exploration accounts for 35.5% of NASA budget across the top six budget accounts and increased 81.1% from FY16 - 20 to FY21 - 25



FY21- 25 FY21 - 25FY21- 25FY16 - 20

Requested (FY22-25)

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATIONAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

75

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Source

% Sole Source

FY19

FY19

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

1

4

8

4

1

2

0.0%

42.6%

44.2%

0.2%

99.2%

56.8%

46.2%

98.6%

40.4%

47.6%

27.6%

58.5%

58.1%

52.4%

59.2%

29.2%

20.6%

8.3%

57.7%

100.0%

25.7%

57.8%

78.8%

90%

34.1%

0.0%

73.7%

29.3%

FY19

FY19

0.4%

41.2%

18.8%

1.7%

55.7%

2.0%

58.2%

23.8%

34.4%

9.6%

27.2%

0.0%

13.9%

24.7%

FY18

FY18

0.4%

29.6%

11.7%

1.6%

63.4%

2.1%

64.6%

23.1%

32.1%

13.3%

30.7%

0.0%

11.5%

28.2%

FY19

FY19

2460

296

292

2475

406

597

98

3669

189

240

2259

87

339

2026

FY18

FY18

2512

355

282

2554

396

625

96

4347

215

285

2634

97

373

1884

$1.3 B

$614.8 M

$4.6 B

$914.6 M

$308.1 M

$2.6 B

$1.8 B

$934.9 M

$402.2 M

$2.7 B

$2.9 B

$1.1 B

$477.8 M

$2.9 B

2

5

11

10

3

7

6

3

California Institute of Technology



Boeing Co. (BA)


Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc. (AJRD)


KBR Inc. (KBR)

Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

Arctic Slope Regional Corp.


2.4

0.7

0.0

2.2

3.6

0.0

0.4

3.1

0.2

0.6

2.5

1.1

0.6

0.2

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



NASA - Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)

NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center

NASA - Johnson Space Center

NASA - Marshall Space Flight Center

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

76


NSF budget decreased 5.8% from FY20 to FY21 with a modest increase of 7.2% in Education and Human Resources

Research and Related Activities accounts for 77.9% of NSF budget across the top six budget accounts

11 100%3 $1.7 B 0.9%Agency Operations and Award Management

4 $1.2 B 0.4%Major Research Equipment & Construction100%

5 $200.0 M 21.2%Donations

6 $90.0 M 16.9%Office of Inspector General

1 $31.1 B 1.6%Research and Related Activities

2 $5.6 B 7.2%Education and Human Resources

National Science Foundation



FY21-FY25

FY16 - FY20

% Change

Account Budget


FY21- 25 FY21 - 25FY21- 25FY16 - 20

Requested (FY22-25)

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATIONAgency and Vendor Benchmarks

77

Top Vendors

Rank

Rank

Name

Name

% Sole Source

% Sole Source

FY19

FY19 FY18

% FP

% FP

% CP

% CP

FY19

FY19

1

239

6

2

1

3

0.0%

40.0%

100.0%

100.0%

91.7%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

53.3%

0.0%

28.6%

93.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

100.0%

48.2%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

61.1%

0.0%

4.3%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

FY19

FY19

0.0%

20.0%

50.0%

15.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

72.4%

5.6%

0.0%

38.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

FY18

FY18

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

79.8%

63.6%

39.2%

0.0%

0.0%

FY19

FY19

12

5

4

13

15

7

7

58

18

2

882

24

53

2

FY18

11

1

12

6

10

8

9

84

33

1072

38

65

$25.5 M

$8.7 M

$529.5 M

$9.1 M

$6.6 M

$634.5 K

$62.1 M

$12.9 M

$6.7 M

$3.5 M

$290.2 M

$14.7 M

$8.3 M

$13.0 M

2

5

8

13

3

4


Westat Inc.

Accenture PLC (ACN)


By Light, Professional IT Services LLC

Synectics For Management Decisions Inc.


Air Center Helicopters Inc.

Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corp. (NTTYY)

SRI International


1.8

2.7

0.2

0.1

2.8

0.3

0.3

0.4

1.6

0.2

0.7

0.2

2020

2020

2019

2019



Contract Actions

Contract Actions



IBC Acquisition Services - Colorado

IBC Acquisition Services Directorate

NSF BFA - Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

2

3

1

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10




78

Quantum Technologies as a Strategic Defense Priority

The United States and China are in a race for quantum supremacy. Defense experts posit that the winner of this race will secure a significant military advantage in high-intensity warfare. Chinese strategic documents, including its 13th Five-Year Plan and Made in China 2025, identify quantum technologies as essential to shaping the future international balance of power. Similarly, Dr. Michael Griffin, Under Secretary of Defense, Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)), identified quantum sciences as one of twelve modernization priorities essential to achieving strategic technological superiority.1 Surprisingly, despite this stated urgency, the overall amount of DoD RDT&E funding for quantum-specific activities decreased in the FY21 President’s Budget Request (PBR). Numerous calls to action have signaled the importance of quantum sciences to U.S. military advantage. These include a 2019 Defense Science Board (DSB) report on the Applications of Quantum Technologies, as well as the creation of a National Quantum Initiative (NQI) Program by the 2018 National Quantum Initiative Act. While the bill did not mandate DoD funding, the 2019 DSB report pushes for DoD involvement in the NQI Program, and in particular recommends that “USD(R&E) advocate DoD participation in the National Quantum Initiative.”

As a strategic defense priority, Congressional support is critical to ensuring that sufficient funds are appropriated to federal quantum development efforts. Congressional hearing data suggests that there is robust and growing interest in quantum sciences. Following passage of the 2018 National Quantum Initiative Act, discussion around quantum reached its peak, more than doubling the frequency of references

from FY17 to FY18. The upward trend of quantum discussion from FY15 - FY19 suggests that interest in quantum technologies has been growing. In FY19, 15% of the Congressional committees analyzed mentioned a quantum keyword at least once in hearing transcripts, indicating attention from Congress toward quantum technologies. Of the twelve committees examined, five referenced quantum keywords more than five times per hearing, representing 29% of all FY19 committees studied.2

Despite calls to expand federal quantum resourcing and growing Congressional support for doing so, the FY21 DoD RDT&E budget for quantum-related programs decreased by nearly 10%. While DoD’s RDT&E funding for quantum recovers and grows throughout the FYDP, this measured approach seems inconsistent with the intensity of competition with China for leadership in quantum technologies.

The Army has the lowest share of quantum investments totaling $673.4M FY16 - 25. After a 22% cut in FY20, Army quantum funding grows modestly in FY21 from $58.4M to $62.6M. The Navy’s overall quantum budget sits just above the Army’s at $726.2M FY16 - 25. Navy funding for quantum activities peaked in FY19 at $84.4M before slowly decreasing to $81.M in FY21. Of note, the Navy is the only Military Department with funds concentrated towards the prototyping and productization of new technologies: most funding supports operational systems development (budget activity 6.7) of the Information Security Systems Program. The Air Force quantum budget is more than three times larger than the Army or Navy at $2.8B FY16 - 25. It peaked in FY20 at $290.3M before declining by 13.3% in the FY21 PBR. This decline, however, is primarily driven by cryptography work to support operational systems development (budget activity 6.7) of the Minuteman III Launch Control Centers, where a decline over time is expected. While funding for basic research projects (budget activity 6.2)


79

declines by 10.9% in FY21, funding remains relatively stable throughout the FYDP. Finally, across DoD, DARPA has the largest concentration of quantum funding totaling $3.3B FY16-25. Given the nascency of quantum sciences, this is not surprising. DARPA’s quantum investments take a 10% dip in FY21 but bounce back in FY22, growing from $254.6M to $338.2M.

While the DoD has stated a commitment to advancing the development of quantum sciences, the FY21 PBR reflects a restrained

approach to quantum science funding. Rather than investing money today, it defers funding out across the FYDP. Given Congress’ growing interest in quantum activities, this will likely receive greater attention over the coming years. Quantum sciences have the potential to transform the future of warfare. To capitalize on the associated game-changing technologies, DoD must ensure an appropriate level of funding in quantum sciences or risk being outpaced by China.

YoY % of Hearings with a Quantum Reference RDT&E Quantum Budget by Military Department

YoY Frequency of Quantum References

Quantum Reference No Reference

13%

12%

13% 15%

15%

Army Navy Air Force

Dollars

Defense-Wide

1DSB’s December 2019 Report on the Applications of Quantum Technologies underpins the importance of U.S. dominance in quantum investment and recommends the participation of DoD in the NQI. Quantum science can improve warfighting capabilities in three core areas: sensing, computing, and communications.2In this report, five keyword mentions were used to indicate concentrated conversation about the subject.

80

GUIDES & VENDOR INDEX

81

NDS MODERNIZATION PRIORITIES GUIDE


Dollars

Unmanned Surface PlatformsUnmanned Air Platforms

Unmanned Subsurface PlatformsArtificial Intelligence Unmanned Ground Platforms

Army Army Navy Air Force Defense-Wide

Investment Budget by Subsegment, FY16 - 25 (Bar) Year-over-year investment budget by military department, FY16 - 25

Investment Budget by Subsegment, FY16 - 25 (Treetop) Investment budget by subsegment, FY16 - 25

Investment Budget Velocity by Subsegment, FY16 - 25Subsegment CAGR against investment budget dollars, FY16 - 25

Click Here to Reference the Table of Contents

82


9.5% 88% 20%Navy

Budget% RDT&E

60% 67%

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$2.8 B $5.2 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$4.3 B $3.5 B

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

$11.7 B $12.9 B

Investment Budget

FY16 - 20 FY21 - 25

1 1


MILDEPRank CII Top Affiliations

604 MIT, Carnegie Mellon U.1.25 0.5545 22 101


Navy

Academic Research

2018 2018 2018 FY18 - 192019 2019 2019% Change

9.8%

FY18-19 FY16-17


$4.7 B $301.6 M 77%$10.9 B $6.2 B $533.5 M31%


USAF

Contracts

FY16 - 17FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % Change% ChangeFY18 - 19

1 1

FY16 - 19


86.7% $5.1 MUniversity of Wisconsin


USAF


$31.0 M


$27.3 M $3.6 M

FY16 - 17 FY18 - 19 % ChangeFY18-19 FY16-17

1 1

Rank


Rank Ranks military departments by total investment dollars

Rank Ranks military departments by total prime contract obligations FY16 - 17 compared to FY18 - 19

Rank Ranks military departments by total grant dollars in FY16 - 17 compared to FY18 - 19

Rank Ranks military departments by Recent Works, H Index, and CII based on 2019 academic research

Investment Budget Sum of investment budget dollars for each military department

OTA & SBIR/STTRTotal prime contract obligations that are designated as an OTA or SBIR contract

MILDEP Investment Sum of all grant dollars invested by the given military department FY16 - 19

Recent Works Number of published works within the given year

Percent RDT&E % change of total investment dollars from FY16 - 20 to FY21- 25 by military department

Contract Obligations Sum of total prime contract obligations for each military department

Grant Dollars Sum of federal action obligations by military department FY16 - 17 and FY18 - 19

H Index Indicates at least H number of works with a minimum of H number of citations; H index controls for large volume of insignificant work

Budget Activity 6.1-6.4 Total dollars associated with RDT&E budget activities 6.1-6.4

RDT&E Obligations Total prime contract obligations that are associated with RDT&E determined by Budget Account numbers and A-code PSCs

Largest Grant Recipient Grant recipient with the highest cumulative federal action obligations FY16 - 19

CII The Current Impact Index measures recent citations per work relative to recent citations per work for all academic research in the NDS Priorities Taxonomy

Budget Activity 6.5-6.8 Total dollars associated with RDT&E budget activities 6.1-6.4

Top Affiliations Top two affiliations for the funding agency and segment across 2018 and 2019


83



1 4.7%296 310 VA-11131 8.4%

FY16 - 17

123 11%

FY18 - 19 % Change

Artificial IntelligenceSenate Committe on

Appropriations



2.6

Total Obligations by Place of Performance, FY16 - 19

Funding Agency





Defense-Wide

10

20

30

Total Obligations by Place of Performance, FY16 - 19Total obligations by place of performance by reported zip code FY16 - 19

Rank Subsegments are ranked by largest to smallest percentage point change

Congressional Hearing References Nominal: Number of distinct congressional hearings with a subsegment reference | Percent of total hearings held by the committees analyzed that referenced a subsegment

Largest District The congressional district that has the highest total prime award obligations based on place of performance

Top Committee The committee with the highest number of distinct hearings that reference a subsegment FY16 - 19

Number of Congressional Districts The number of congressional districts based on a contract’s place of performance associated with each subsegment



% Change % of Priority Total

$32.9 B

$14.3 B

$8.0 B

60%

10%

13%

45%

20%

11%

Enacted Total

$41.2 B

$7.0 B

$9.2 B

FY16 - FY20 FY21 - FY25 % Change



Legacy Platforms


Legacy Munitions

20.2%

104.9%

104.9%

15%

10%

2%

Rank

1

6

4

1

3

5

FY16 - FY20FY21 - FY25

MILITARY DEPARTMENTS GUIDE




Dollars

Perc

ent C

hang

e


Investment Budget Dollars, FY16 - 25 (Bar)Year-over-year investment budget, FY16 - 25

Investment Budget Dollars, FY16 - 25 (Treetop)Investment budget by segment, FY16 - 25

Investment Budget Velocity by Subsegment, FY16 - 25Segment CAGR against investment budget dollars, FY16 - 25

SegmentTop 5 NDS Modernization Priority segments, orange boxes in the taxonomy

Percent Change Percent change from enacted to requested total investment budget by subsegment

Percent of Priority Total Perecent of total segment investment budget by subsegment

Requested Total Total investment budget dollars (RDT&E and Procurement) by subsegment FY21 - 25

Rank Rank of all subsegments based on total investment budget dollars FY16 - 20 compared to FY21 - 25

Enacted Total Total investment budget dollars (RDT&E and Procurement) by subsegment FY16 - 20

84

SubsegmentTop 3 NDS Modernization Priority subsegments, white boxes in the taxonomy





# of Vendors


2019

1

4

9

1

5

10

MI-09, MI-10

TX-06, TX-30, TX-33

NH-01

2018

$12.9 B

$2.5 B

$637.0 M

$11.9 B

$2.7 B

$605.6 M

8%

8%

5%


Legacy Platforms

Legacy Munitions


2019 % Change

74%

17%

4%

2019

409

55

401

2019

248

49

251

2019

78%

15%

4%

2018

418

70

430

20182018

275

68

273

2018



Dollars

Perc

ent C

hang

e



Modernization Priorities by Total Obligation, FY15 - 19 (Bar)Year-over-year segment by prime awarded value, FY15 - 19

Modernization Priorities by Total Obligation, FY15 - 19 (Treetop) Segements by prime awarded value, FY15 - 19

Contracts Velocity by Segment, FY15 -19Segment CAGR against total prime awarded value, FY15 - 19

Total Obligated Amount Sum of total prime contract obligations for each subsegment FY18 compared to FY19

SegmentTop 5 NDS Modernization Priority segments, orange boxes in the taxonomy

SubsegmentTop 3 NDS Modernization Priority subsegments, white boxes in the taxonomy

Number of VendorsTotal number of prime contracts FY18 - 19 by subsegment

Top Congressional District by POP zip Congressional district with the largest cumulative prime award contract obligations FY18 - 19 based on place of performance

Percent of Subsegment Total Perecent of total segment prime award contract obligations by subsegment

Rank Rank of all subsegments based on total prime award obligations FY18 compared to FY19

Number of Congressonal Districts Total number of congressional districts with prime awarded contracts based on place of performance 85


Vendors

Rank Name

FY19 FY19FY19FY19 FY18 FY18 FY19 FY19

67.9% 67.3% 32%57.3%520 618$8.4 B1 Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) 3.0


1

2020 2019


Contract Actions

% Fixed-Price % Cost-Plus% Sole Source


Percent Change of All MILDEP Spend Percentage point change in share of total department contract obligations FY18 - FY19 by vendor and contracting office

Rank Ranked by total contract obligations FY18 compared to FY19

Contract Actions Count of contracts and task orders FY19 versus FY18 by vendor and contracting office

Percent Fixed-Price Percent of contracts that are fixed-price

Percent Sole Source Percent of contracts that are sole-source awarded

Total Contract Obligations Total prime awarded contract obligations FY19 by vendor and contracting office

Percent Cost-Plus Percent of contracts that are cost-plus

86


87

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMPONENTS GUIDE

YoY Funding by Investment Account, FY16 - 25 Enacted versus requested procurement & RDT&E investment budget totals, FY16 - 25

Velocity by Budget Account, FY16 - 25 Budget account CAGR agsinst investment budget dollars, FY16 - 25

Total Investment Funding by Percent Investment Account Percent RDT&E versus percent procurement for enacted & requested budget, FY16 - 25


Dollars

CAG

R

RDT&E Procurement

Procurement

Procurement


Top Vendors

Rank Name% Obligation Share Change

% Sole Sourced

FY19 FY19FY18 FY18 % FP % CPFY19

1 36.5% 50.4%16.8%24.3%

FY19

137152$483.4 MThe Boeing Company 16.2%

2020 2019


Contract Actions


1

Rank Ranked by total contract obligations FY18 versus FY19

Contract Actions Count of contracts and task orders FY19 versus FY18 by vendor and contracting office

FY19 Contract Pricing Type Percent of contracts that are fixed-price (% FP) versus those that are cost-plus (% CP)

Contract Obligations Total prime awarded contract obligations FY19 by vendor and contracting office

Percent Obligation Share Change Percentage point change in share of total component contract obligations FY18 - 19 by vendor and contracting office

Percent Sole Sourced Percent of contracts that are sole-source awarded


88

U.S. INTERAGENCY GUIDE

Year-Over-Year Discretionary Budget, FY16 - 25 FY21 Budget Dollars by Bureau, FY16 - 25

21 28.5%1 $82.8 B 21.8%Operations and Support

2 $11.4 B 45.2%Procurement, Construction, and Improvements20.8%U.S. Customs and Border Protection



FY21-FY25

FY21-FY25

FY21-FY25

FY21- FY25FY16 - FY20

FY16 - FY20

% Change

Account Budget

Budget AccountFunctional budget account within a given bureau

Percent Share Agency Budget Percent of total agency budget allocated by bureau

Budget Account Rank Ranked by budget totals FY16 - 20 versus FY21 - 25

Account Budget Budget totals & percent change FY16 - 20 compared for FY21- 25 by budget account

Year-Over-Year Discretionary Budget, FY16 - 25 (Bar) Year-over-year discretionary budget investment, FY16 - 25

FY21 Budget Dollars by Bureau, FY16 - 25Budget dollar investment by bureau, FY16 - 25 based on the the FY21 budget


89

U.S. INTERAGENCY GUIDE

Top Vendors

Rank Name% Obligation Share Change

% Sole Sourced

FY19 FY19 FY19FY18 FY18 % FP % CPFY19

18 94.3% 0%98.1%88.1%5367$905.1 MHuntington Ingalls Industries, Inc. 4.1%

2020 2019


Contract Actions


1

Rank Ranked by total contract obligations FY18 versus FY19

Contract ActionsCount of contracts and task orders FY19 versus FY18 by vendor and contracting office

% Obligation Share ChangePercentage point change in share of total agency contract obligations FY18 - 19 by vendor and contracting office

Contract Obligations Total prime awarded contract obligations FY19 by vendor and contracting office

FY19 Contract Pricing Type Percent of contracts that are fixed-price (% FP) versus those that are cost-plus (% CP)

Percent Sole Sourced Percent of contracts that are sole-source awarded


90

VENDOR INDEX

Vendor Vendor Vendor PagePagePage

75 55

73 69

59 59 63

61, 75 69, 73 67

77 71 69, 71, 59, 77

59, 67 37 49, 61, 63

37, 43, 49, 53 43, 67 71

37

67 37, 49, 61 73

43 37, 43, 53, 69, 73 55

AAR Corp.

Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp.


Accenture PLC

BVH Inc.

By Light, Professional IT Services LLC

Caddell Construction Co.

California Institute of Technology

Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.

Hensel Phelps Construction Co.37, 43, 49, 53, 61, 63, 75

37, 43, 49, 53, 61, 63, 75

71 71

Arctic Slope Regional Corp.

L3Harris Technologies Inc.

59

77

73

75

43, 63, 69

57

61, 63, 69, 75, 77

53, 61

55

59, 69, 73

63

61

BAE Systems PLC

CoreCivic Inc. Leidos Holdings Inc.

Battelle Memorial Institute Inc.

Culmen International LLC

DDC IT Services LLC Lockheed Martin Corp.

Bollinger Shipyards LLC

General Electric Co.

55 77

53, 57, 59, 63, 77

69

37, 67 37, 43, 49, 53, 61, 75

B.L. Harbert Holdings LLC

Constellis Holdings LLC Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC

AECOM Technology Corp.

CGI Inc.

Honeywell International Inc.

57 49 57, 71

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc.

Cisco Systems Inc.

Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc.

Information Gateways Inc.

Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.


Air Center Helicopters Inc.

Consolidated Nuclear Security LLC

KBR Inc.

Applied Research Associates Inc.

Krueger International Inc.

Boeing Co.

General Dynamics Corp.

BAESY

AJRD

ACM

ACN

FLR

GE

GD

HPE

HON

HII

JEC

KBR

LHX

LDOS

LMT

FINMY

BA

BAH

GIB

CSCO

CXW

AIR 73 73 63, 75

Bechtel Group Inc.

Deloitte LLP

Blackstone Consulting Inc.

Fluor Corp.

71, 77 55 71

Miscellaneous Foreign Contractors

Nippon Telegraph And Telephone Corp.

Northrop Grumman Corp.

Naphcare Inc.

Leonardo SPA


Oracle Corp.

PAE Holding Corp.

Palantir Technologies Inc.

Parsons Corp.

Mythics Inc.

MCK

NTTYY

NOC

PAE

ORCL

PSN

M1 Support Services LP

McKesson Corp.

TickerSymbol

TickerSymbol

TickerSymbol

91

VENDOR INDEX

Vendor Vendor PagePage

57 55

59

75 57

57

57, 59, 71, 73, 75 67

69

55

67 43, 49

53, 77 77

67 55

77 63

Perspecta Inc.

The Day & Zimmermann Group Inc.

World Wide Technology Holding Co. LLC

Raytheon Co.

The Geo Group Inc.

Tier 1 Performance Solutions LLC

Triad National Security LLC

UChicago Argonne LLC

SHR Consulting Group LLC

69, 71

57

67

67

SRI International

Veritas Capital Fund Management LLC

State Of California

Verizon Business Network Services Inc.

Valiant Integrated Services LLC

Tetra Tech Inc.

73

57

59

Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

UT-Battelle LLC

Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC

Unisys Corp.

53

Science Applications International Corp.

United Launch Alliance LLC

Securitas AB

United Technologies Corp.

Shoulder 2 Shoulder Inc.

Teksynap Corp.

Yorktown Systems Group Inc.

SECU-B

SAIC

RTN

TTEK

GEO

UIS

UTX

RTX

VZ

PRSP 55 55

Synectics For Management Decisions Inc.

Vysnova Partners Inc.

Systems Technology Research LLC

Westat Inc.

37, 43, 49, 53, 61 49

TickerSymbol

TickerSymbol

Govini transforms the business of National Security through Data Science and Machine Learning.

Govini’s unique Dataset and Analytic Platform are used at scale across the OSD, Joint Staff, Military Departments, and Defense Agencies to facilitate implementation of the National Defense Strategy. These capabilities enable defense leaders to better direct investments to innovation and modernization, balance mission portfolios to reflect agency priorities, and achieve superior financial and mission outcomes.

With Govini, DoD’s data scientists and analysts solve challenges pertaining to Strategic Portfolio Analysis, Resourcing and Reform, the Defense Industrial Base, Science and Technology Surveillance, and Secure Supply Chains with unprecedented visibility into defense activities and global markets.

Govini has offices in Arlington, Virginia, San Francisco, California,and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.


THE 2020 FEDERAL SCORECARD - Govini

Documents