Awarding agency: General Services Administration · Funded by Department of Defense
Who got paid, how much, for what, and whether it is defensible. Citizen opinion on the record, not a mandate.
Status and record
OPERATIONAL PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION AND ASSESSMENT SERVICES (OPIAS) BASE AWARD.
$845.6M · DELIVERY ORDER · General Services Administration · FL
FEDERAL SPENDING · CITIZEN OPINION
Was this federal payment to PERATON INC. worth it?
$845.6M · General Services Administration to PERATON INC.
Be the first to put your opinion on the record.
What this award is
AI analysis
This is a contract where the Department of Defense (DoD) is paying Peraton Inc., a defense technology company based in Florida, up to $845.6 million over about five and a half years to provide planning, execution, and evaluation services for military operations. Peraton will help the DoD organize and assess how well its operational plans and missions are working.
DEEPER CONTEXTAnalysis · Risks · Arguments
WHY THIS MONEY IS BEING SPENT
WHY WAS THIS FUNDED?
The DoD regularly contracts private companies to support complex military planning and analysis functions that require specialized expertise. Additional program information is not available about the specific legal authority or program behind this award.
WHAT PUBLIC PROBLEM IS IT TRYING TO SOLVE?
The U.S. military needs expert support to plan, carry out, and measure the success of its operations, and this contract is meant to provide that analytical and planning capacity. Without this kind of support, the DoD may struggle to efficiently coordinate large, complex missions.
WHO BENEFITS?
The primary beneficiaries are DoD military and civilian personnel who rely on these planning and assessment services to carry out their missions more effectively. Employees of Peraton Inc. also benefit through jobs supported by this contract.
Plain-language reading generated from the USASpending award record. Not legal or financial advice.
RISKS AND TRADEOFFS
WHAT ARE THE RISKS?
A contract of this size with an unclear contract type raises questions about how costs are controlled and how performance is measured. If oversight is insufficient, there is a risk that taxpayer money could be spent without clear proof that the services delivered real value.
WHAT HAPPENS IF FUNDING IS REMOVED?
If this contract were cancelled, the DoD would likely face gaps in its operational planning and assessment capabilities until it found another way to fill those functions, either through other contractors or government staff. Military planning operations that depend on these services could be delayed or disrupted.
FOR AND AGAINST
ARGUMENTS FOR
- •The DoD needs specialized outside expertise to handle complex operational planning, and private contractors like Peraton can provide skilled professionals quickly.
- •A long-term contract provides continuity and allows the contractor to build deep knowledge of DoD systems and needs over time.
- •Outsourcing this work can be more cost-effective than hiring and training a large permanent government workforce for specialized analytical tasks.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST
- •At $845.6 million, this is a very large contract, and the unclear contract type makes it harder for the public to know whether costs are being properly controlled.
- •Relying on a private company for core military planning functions may create risks if the contractor underperforms or if priorities change and the contract is hard to exit.
- •Without detailed public information about the scope of work, it is difficult for citizens or oversight bodies to judge whether this spending is truly necessary or efficiently managed.
SPENDING TIMELINE
Add a tag
Written opinion on whether this spending is appropriate · not a duplicate of the Worth It / Wasteful vote or spending record. Similar opinions on this spending record can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Your stance is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate. Mandate accountability applies when Congress votes on tracked legislation.