ARDAK Logo white 150
    • About

          • About - ARDAK's legacy and SIGNIFICANT differentiator, ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) Competitive Intelligence Tool Comprises of Modules that can be licensed to meet your unique needs

    • Partners and Affiliations

          • Partners & Affiliations - ARDAK has been an active member in the GovCon / Aerospace and Defense (A&D) Industry for 35 + years

    • Rate Derivation (RD) Methodology

          • RD Indirect Rate Methodology - ARDAK’s Wrap Rate Methodology was used to develop the most sophisticated Wrap Rate Intellectual Property (IP) in the industry.  While emulated by our competitors ONLY ARDAK has 35 + years of continuous Wrap Rate IP enhancements, and every analyst has a minimum of 20 years’ experience using ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD Summary

          • RD Summary - A TOP DOWN estimates of the Wrap Rate Derivation (multiple of Fringe, Overhead, and G&A, without regard to Fee or Material Handling costs) are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD HIGH Level Decomposition

          • RD HIGH Level Decomposition - A TOP DOWN HIGH Level Wrap Rate Decomposition consisting of the estimated Fringe, Overhead and G&A for both plant and site operations are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD LOW Level Decomposition

          • RD LOW Level Decomposition - A BOTTOM Up LOW Level Wrap Rate Decomposition consisting of 23 DESCRETE ELEMENTS of Fringe, Overhead and G&A and Relative Competitiveness (High, Low, Mean, Standard Deviation) to the Market Sector at the element level are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD LOW Level ELEMENT Descriptions

          • RD LOW Level ELEMENT Descriptions - 23 DISCRETE ELEMENTS of Fringe, Overhead, and G&A are defined and normalized within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD Price To Win (PTW) Trending

          • RD Price To Win Trending - Proprietary PTW algorithms are applied to 23 DISCRETE ELEMENTS of Fringe, Overhead, and G&A for each procurement class developed (Priority, Must Win, and Strategic) PWIN Rates are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD PREDICTIVE Rate Derivations

          • RD PREDICTIVE Summary - Several Wrap Rate Predictive Models including UNPOPULATED JV’s, Notional, Pro Forma, and other custom modifications to a competitor's cost basis are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • RD Competitor Target Acquisition

          • RD Competitor Target Acquisition - Utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) Target Acquisition Functionality, ARDAK will validate or suggest the Competitor Cost Center target that has the lowest Wrap Rate, domain expertise, and Customer past performance deemed to be the most Significant Competitive Threat

    • RD's and ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

          • RD's and ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) - Widely Recognized as the GOLD STANDARD, and the “Standard & Poor’s” of Indirect / Wrap Rate Analysis with in the A&D Industry

    • Market Based Affordability (MBA)

          • Market Based Affordability (MBA) - Since the 2008 Financial Crisis, ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) was utilized for dozens of MBA Analyses relative to specific Market Sectors for the largest A&D Contractors in the world

    • Service Centric PTW

          • Service Centric PTW - Service Centric PTW Opportunities are those that involve very little or no material, custom solution, or platform development, and are predominately labor based and utilizes ARDAK's RATE TO WIN (RTW) Models

    • Platform / Solution Centric PTW

          • Platform / Solution Centric - Platform / Solution Centric PTW opportunities are those that involve a customized solution such as a weapon system and typically leverages one or more of ARDAK’s Proprietary Cost Models

    • EMMARS PTW Use Case

          • EMMARS PTW Use Case - See an example of  a Platform / Solution based PTW utilizing ARDAK's Proprietary Cost Models

    • Portfolio Analysis

          • Portfolio Analysis - Validate, Optimize, Expand, Realign, and Develop a Go To Market Strategy utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Market Analysis

          • Market Analysis - Staying on top of changing markets requires Competitive Intelligence. By utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) Market Analysis is your basis for making sound decisions about where to utilize your resources now and in the future

    • Market Based Affordability (MBA)

          • Market Based Affordability (MBA) - Since the 2008 Financial Crisis, ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) was utilized for dozens of MBA Analyses relative to specific Market Sectors for the largest A&D Contractors in the world

    • Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A’s)

          • Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A's) - ARDAK has supported $Billions of M&A's including candidate Identification, Review, Screening, Market Participation, Customer Base, and Programs utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Competitor Assessment

          • Competitive Assessments – A deep utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) delivering Competitive Posture, Recent Wins & Losses, Operating Segments, Financial Performance, M&A's, Reliance on Government & Commercial Business, Leading Customers, Products & Services, Contracts, and Contract Types

    • Agency Analysis

          • Agency Analysis – A deep utilizing ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) providing significant visibility into Agency's Leading Competitors, Products & Services, Contracts, and Contract Types

    • Rate Derivation (RD) RD Summary

          • RD Summary - A TOP DOWN estimates of the Wrap Rate Derivation (multiple of Fringe, Overhead, and G&A, without regard to Fee or Material Handling costs) are maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Direct Labor (DL) Rate Analysis

          • Direct Labor (DL) Rate Category and Analysis – Thousands of LCATs by Title, Description, Years of Experience, Educational, Clearance Requirements, and Geographic Location are stored and maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Material Handling (MH) Analysis

          • Material Handling (MH) Analysis –An assessment of the competitor’s Material & Handling by burdening policy (Value Added, Fixed Costs, Direct Material, Other Material, etc.) and estimated burden rate are stored and maintained within ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Fee Analysis

          • Fee Analysis – Scrubbed contract actions stored in ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES) are analyzed to estimate a competitor’s Fee structure.  The operating margin is calculated and a comparative analysis is then performed to validate the Fee which is then stored in ACES

    • A&D Cost Models

          • A&D Cost Models - ARDAK maintains dozens of proprietary cost models relative to specific sectors such Fixed Wing, Rotary Win, Limited Initial Rate Production (LRIP), Full Rate Production (FPR), and Full Life Cycle Costs

    • Government Agencies ($100B+ PTW WINS)

          • Government Agencies – Price To Win (PTW) Past Performance by Government Agency ALL utilized ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

    • Use Cases

          • Use Cases - Price To Win (PTW) Past Performance by Use Case ALL utilized ARDAK's Contract Exploitation System (ACES)

  • News & Insights
  • Contact Us
WW Humble Supporters

Service Centric PTW

ARDAK defines Service Centric Opportunities as those that involve very little or no material, no custom solution or platform development, and are predominately labor based. In some cases the USG will provide the staffing profile, labor categories, and estimated man hours and in other cases the contractor will have to develop the Basis of Estimate (BOE) and associated staffing profile. In either case ARDAK leverages the appropriate components within ARDAK’s Contract Exploitation System (ACES) so that our clients will have full visibility into each element of the cost buildup. Consequently not only do ARDAK’s clients have an opportunity to review each detailed component of the cost build up, but provide input at the cost element level, and if required ARDAK can quickly modify the data element, run it through ACES cost models, and provide our clients with the associated delta to the overall PTW within 24-48 hours.

Rate To Win (RTW)

Initially ARDAK will develop individual Wrap Rates  for each competitor prime and subcontractor, develop the BOE’s, perform labor category analysis, and then apply the Fee. ALL necessary components of ARDAK’s Contract Exploitation System (ACES) will then be used as input into ARDAK’s Service Centric Cost Models.

Service Centric Cost Models

ARDAK has developed numerous service centric PTW cost models by leveraging individual components within ACES.

ARDAK derived the team wrap rate multiple (multiple of G&A, overhead, and fringe, without regard to fee or material handling costs) for both plant and site work for each competitor team identified.

1. Lockheed Martin Information Systems and Global Services, Cherry Hills, NJ

1.1. Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, Belmar, NJ

1.2. Lockheed Martin Services, Cherry Hill, NJ

1.3. Lockheed Martin Information Technology, Sytex Group, Doylestown, PA

1.4. L-3 Communications, Titan Group, Reston, VA

1.5. L-3 Communications Ilex Systems, Systems Engineering Services Div., Shrewsbury, NJ

1.6. EPS, Services Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Tinton Falls, NJ

2. DRS Technical Services, Vienna, VA

2.1. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Taunton Operations, Taunton, MA

2.2. Harris Government Communications Systems Division (GCSD), Melbourne, FL

2.3. Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems (IDS), Tewksbury, MA

2.4. SAIC Federal Business, McLean, VA

2.5. Rockwell Collins Government Systems, Communications Systems, Cedar Rapids, IA

ARDAK recommends developing one, composite Wrap Rate for the Small Business Subcontractors instead of individual Wrap Rates. This recommendation decreases delivery time and cost. The deliverable for this task will be a consolidated Wrap Rate report integrated into the summary briefing.

The following rationale was used to define the team wrap rates in the exemplar provided on the subsequent pages.

For the Lockheed Martin Team:

  1. As the prime, most of the onsite (plant) work will be performed at the LMC IS&GS facility in Cherry Hills NJ.
  2. Due to their relatively high cost and specific expertise, LMC IS will be used sparingly. The work performed by LMC IS will be equally distributed between their plant and “off-site”, be that either at the government’s facility or at LMC IS&GS’ facility.
  3. Because of their low cost, LMC Services will be used in a “Staff Augmentation” role, with a disproportionate number of their personnel working “off-site”, be that either at the government’s facility or at LMC IS&GS’ facility.
  4. As the primary sub-contractor, L-3 Titan will perform work both at their plant and “off-site”. Their relatively low rates will not offset their status as a sub-contractor to LMC.
  5. Due to their specific expertise, L-3 Ilex Systems will be used to perform a small amount of work both at their plant and “off-site”.

As the SDB, EPS will be required to work at both LMC’s and L-3’s facility and bid “off-site” rates.

For the DRS Team:

  1. As the prime, most of the onsite (plant) work will be performed at the DRS facility in Vienna VA.
  2. Due to the requirements for specific equipment associated with GDC4S’ (Taunton), anticipated work load, their portion of the subcontract will be evenly split between their plant and “off-site” efforts.
  3. Due to the requirements for specific equipment associated with Harris GCSD’s, anticipated work load, their portion of the subcontract will be evenly split between their plant and “off-site” efforts.
  4. Due to the requirements for specific equipment associated with Raytheon IDS’, anticipated work load, their portion of the subcontract will be evenly split between their plant and “off-site” efforts.
  5. Typically SAIC maintains only a token facility when compared to their overall work force. Consequently, SAIC’s primary work share will be off-site”.
  6. Due to the requirements for specific equipment associated with Rockwell Collins’, anticipated work load, their portion of the subcontract will be evenly split between their plant and “off-site” efforts.
  7. It is anticipated that the SDB contractor will be required to work at DRS’ facility and bid “off-site” rates. However, it is highly likely that the SDB will not have sufficient accounting procedures in place to adequately define both plant and site rates, so they will bid a composite rate.

The following table summarizes the results of the Team Wrap Rate Derivation Analysis.

Team Wrap Rate Derivation RD Summary 1024x683 1

The example below represents a standard “Rate Card Shootout” where the average labor rate is used as a significant component of the evaluation criteria.

Rate Card Shootout 1

Rate Card Shootout 1

Rate Card Shootout 2

Rate Card Shootout 2

© 2024 ARDAK Corporation - All Rights Reserved​