MICC Dugway Proving Ground

Department of the Army Materiel Command Mission and Installation Contracting Command (MICC) Dugway Proving Ground is the contracting office for the Army's Dugway Proving Ground test and evaluation facility in Utah, where it executes contracts for laboratory operations, test support, facility maintenance, and materiel evaluation.

MICC Dugway has awarded 1,047 contracts cumulatively since 1999, with combined potential value of $2.9 million and $65.7 million in obligated dollars. Recent award volume is sparse: 2 awards in 2016, 1 in 2018, 5 in 2021, 9 in 2022, and 4 in 2024, with the most recent award closed in September 2024. The gap between reported potential value and obligated dollars reflects transactional patterns typical of test-and-evaluation facilities — many awards are low-dollar task orders, BPA calls, or modifications against existing contracts, or represent modifications where the dollar field in the award record does not capture the full scope of work. Potential value reported in award records thus significantly understates actual contract spend.

The prime contractor base is highly fragmented. Among the top five primes by award count over the last five years, Seva Technical Services, Inc. leads with 2 awards, while F C I TECH Inc., Business Products Group, Inc., M&A Global Cartridges LLC, and Arocep Federal, LLC each hold 1 award. These five firms account for 46 percent of recent awards, but their combined potential value is negligible — all five range from $2 thousand to $794 in reported potential value. The long tail comprises 444 distinct prime contractors across the full portfolio, with most transacting through single or occasional awards.

The set-aside mix is heavily skewed toward unrestricted competition. Eighty-seven percent of awards carry no set-aside designation, reflecting the facility's focus on specialized technical and operational support where the vendor base may not align with standard small-business categories. Total small-business awards (including HUBZone and 8(a)) account for approximately 7 percent; competitive and sole-source 8(a) awards together represent 6 percent of the portfolio.

No recent contract opportunities are recorded in the source. MICC Dugway's transaction pattern — sparse award volume, low reported potential values, and heavy reliance on task orders and modifications — suggests that procurement activity is largely driven by facility operational needs rather than open solicitation cycles. Organizations pursuing work at Dugway should focus on relationship development with existing contract vehicles and capability alignment with test, evaluation, and facility-support requirements rather than responding to published opportunities.