Exploring Subcontract Funding

Now, let's take a closer look at how these subcontracts are funded. A high-level, hierarchical visualization of all subcontracts and their associated costs is seen in Figure 2. To explore this visualization, click on any of the inner slices of the chart to get a breakdown of costs.

First, in Figure 3, it is important to note the flow of funding. At the heart of the chart, the Department of Defense oversees the contract. Outside of the Department of Defense, two specific federal accounts provide the funding to Raytheon: DARPA and DCMA. These federal accounts seem to have similar purposes, but in the grand scheme of US contracts, perhaps it would be prudent to keep track of the federal accounts that fund these contracts. In Figure 3, it is clear from the onset that Alliant Techsystems is the most well-funded subcontractor. As Alliant Techsystems was a large aerospace and defense company before being acquired by Northrup Grumman, this makes sense.

However, a limitation of this chart is that Alliant Techsystems is so large that it overwhelms the rest of the subcontracts to the point where it is unclear how large the rest are. It would be much easier to visualize the relative funding size of the rest of the subcontracts by filtering out Alliant Techsystems from the chart. To see this filtered visualization (Figure 4), click on the tab labeled "Filtered Contract Funding."

In Figure 4, it is much easier to see the relative size of the subcontracts. By clicking on the inner slices, it becomes more evident that subcontractors such as Orbital Sciences, Pacific Scientific and Ensign Bickford have relatively large subcontracts. These larger subcontracts seem important, but it would be helpful to understand what the subcontracts were for. In the subsequent visualization, Figure 5, a better idea of the details of these subcontracts can be seen.

In Figure 5, a network shows the relationship between the main contractor (Raytheon), the subcontracts, and the subcontractors. In most cases, a subcontractor will have more than one subcontract with Raytheon. The network in Figure 5 shows this relationship between the main contractor, represented by the green circle, the subcontractors, represented by the red squares, through contracts represented by blue triangles. The size of each entity in the network is relative to the funding of each entity. To discover more information on each of the contracts, a viewer can hover over any of the nodes in the network to learn more.

Using the network above, it is clear again that Alliant Techsystems is the predominant subcontractor for this contract. However, by hovering over each of their subcontracts, it isn't clear what services they provide, as most of the contracts descriptions are Cost Plus Fixed Fee. Next, the network clearly shows the Top 8 funded subcontractors. By looking at each of these subcontractors and their subcontracts, many subcontractors similar sounding subcontracts, which provides little information. However, upon closer inspection, one subcontractor stands out. Aerojet Rocketdyne Inc has subcontracts for wings, fuses, propulsion, and rocket motors. A highly funded contract for a business that makes parts specifically for hypersonic missiles certainly stands out.

There are clear limitations in the network created in Figure 5. It seems that most of the highly funded contracts are described as Firm Fixed Price or Cost Plus Fixed Fee. Considering the scope of the data set, no amount of data analysis provides any more information about these contracts, so perhaps filtering these types of contracts out could provide better insights. It is important not to throw away these contracts as unimportant, but to gain more clarity and narrow the focus of this search, filtering out these type of contracts is a logical next step.

By click on the next tab, Figure 6 shows the filtered version of the subcontracts. Here, it is clearer which companies should be inspected. Alliant Techsystems and Aerojet Rocketdyne are present, but other subcontractors begin to stand out. Dynetics Technical Solutions has large subcontracts for materials (one of the CETs!) and fuselages. L3 Technologies has multiple contracts for encoders. Finally, Ducommun has a large number of contracts for supplies such as cable assemblies and CCAs (Circuit Card Assemblies). By narrowing down the number of subcontractors to 8-10 from a much larger list, it becomes easier to see which should be considered a higher priority for a cybersecurity analysis and further protection as an asset to the US government.