DoD's $26.3M contract for DUAL STABILIATOR CONTROLLER awarded to Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,275,500 ($26.3M)

Contractor: Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-04-27

End Date: 2011-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,678 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: DUAL STABILIATOR CONTROLLER

Place of Performance

Location: WINDSOR LOCKS, HARTFORD County, CONNECTICUT, 06096

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.3 million to HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION for work described as: DUAL STABILIATOR CONTROLLER Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. The contract duration of 1678 days suggests a long-term need for the product. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. The product falls under the 'Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing' NAICS code. 5. Awarded by the Department of Defense, indicating a defense-related procurement. 6. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost savings.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money on this $26.3 million contract. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally favorable for the government in managing cost overruns, but the lack of competition means the government may not have secured the lowest possible price. Further analysis would require comparison to similar sole-source procurements for comparable components or systems, which are not readily available in this dataset.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities, technology, or proprietary rights to fulfill the requirement. The lack of competition means that price discovery through market forces was absent, potentially leading to a higher price than if multiple bids had been solicited.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible price for goods and services, as there was no opportunity for vendors to compete on cost. This can lead to less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense, which receives the dual stabilizer controllers for its aeronautical and nautical systems. The services delivered include the manufacturing and supply of critical components for navigation and guidance systems. The geographic impact is primarily within Connecticut, where Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is located. Workforce implications include employment at Hamilton Sundstrand and its supply chain, particularly in the specialized manufacturing sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may result in inflated pricing.
Sole-source awards can limit innovation by not engaging a broader market.
Dependence on a single supplier can create supply chain risks.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing need for the product.
Award to an established corporation implies potential for reliable delivery.

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls within the aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically instruments for navigation, guidance, and control. This sector is characterized by high technological barriers to entry, stringent quality requirements, and significant government spending. The market size for such specialized components is substantial, driven by ongoing defense modernization and aircraft production. This contract represents a specific component within a larger defense system, highlighting the intricate supply chains within the industry.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, there is no explicit mention of subcontracting plans for small businesses. The sole-source nature of the award further limits opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific procurement, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, unless they are part of Hamilton Sundstrand's established supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The firm-fixed-price contract type provides a degree of financial oversight by fixing the price, but monitoring the quality and timely delivery of the dual stabilizer controllers remains crucial. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature, and specific Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on the nature of any potential issues arising from the contract.

Related Government Programs

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Oversight
Aeronautical and Nautical System Manufacturing
Firm Fixed Price Contracts
Sole Source Procurements
Department of Defense Supply Chain

Risk Flags

Sole Source Award
Lack of Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Supplier Dependency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.3 million to HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION. DUAL STABILIATOR CONTROLLER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-04-27. End: 2011-11-30.

What is the track record of Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation with the Department of Defense for similar components?

Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, now part of RTX (formerly Raytheon Technologies), has a long history of supplying complex systems and components to the Department of Defense. Their expertise lies in aerospace systems, including propulsion, power, and control technologies. For dual stabilizer controllers specifically, their track record would involve successful delivery of previous iterations or related components for various military aircraft and naval platforms. Given their established presence and capabilities in the defense sector, they are a known entity for complex manufacturing. However, the specific performance metrics for this particular contract, such as on-time delivery rates and quality compliance, would require a deeper dive into contract performance databases and historical award data beyond the provided summary.

How does the $26.3 million value compare to similar sole-source procurements for dual stabilizer controllers?

Directly comparing the $26.3 million value of this sole-source contract to similar procurements is challenging without access to a comprehensive database of sole-source awards for identical or highly comparable dual stabilizer controllers. Sole-source contracts inherently lack the price discovery mechanism of competitive bidding, making external benchmarking difficult. Factors such as technological complexity, specific performance requirements, quantity, and the unique capabilities of the sole-source provider (Hamilton Sundstrand) all influence pricing. To assess value, one would ideally compare this contract's unit price and total value against historical sole-source awards for similar systems, or against internal cost estimates if available. The absence of competition suggests that the government accepted the contractor's proposed price as fair and reasonable, but without competitive data, it's hard to definitively state if it represents optimal value.

What are the primary risks associated with this sole-source contract for dual stabilizer controllers?

The primary risks associated with this sole-source contract are centered around the lack of competition. Firstly, there is a significant risk of paying a premium price, as there was no competitive pressure to drive down costs. Secondly, there's a potential for reduced innovation, as the contractor may have less incentive to improve efficiency or develop more cost-effective solutions when facing no direct market rivals for this specific contract. Thirdly, a sole-source award can create supplier dependency; if Hamilton Sundstrand faces production issues, delays, or goes out of business, the Department of Defense could face substantial disruption in acquiring these critical components, with limited alternative sources. Finally, ensuring the contractor maintains high quality and performance standards without competitive oversight requires robust government monitoring.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type in managing costs for this procurement?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in managing costs for procurements where the scope of work is well-defined and the risks are understood. In this case, for the supply of dual stabilizer controllers, FFP shifts the primary cost risk to the contractor, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation. This means that the contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. This structure incentivizes the contractor to control their expenses and operate efficiently to maximize profit. For the government, it provides budget certainty and protects against cost overruns, assuming the initial price negotiated was fair and reasonable. However, the effectiveness is somewhat diminished by the sole-source nature, as the initial 'fair and reasonable' price determination is made without competitive benchmarks.

What are the historical spending patterns for dual stabilizer controllers or similar navigation/guidance instruments by the DoD?

Historical spending patterns for dual stabilizer controllers and similar navigation/guidance instruments by the DoD are typically substantial, reflecting the critical nature of these components for military aviation and naval operations. The DoD consistently invests heavily in avionics and related systems to maintain technological superiority. Spending in this category often fluctuates based on new platform development, upgrades to existing fleets, and sustainment requirements. While this specific contract is for $26.3 million over approximately four years, broader spending encompasses R&D, production, and sustainment across numerous platforms. Analyzing historical data would reveal trends in contract values, types (competitive vs. sole-source), and key suppliers within this specialized segment of the defense industrial base.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: INSTRUMENTS AND LABORATORY EQPT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp (UEI: 001344142)

Address: ONE HAMILTON ROAD, WINDSOR LOCKS, CT, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,275,500

Exercised Options: $26,275,500

Current Obligation: $26,275,500

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T07DC013

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline