DoD awards $28.5M for pintle adapters, with BAE Systems as sole source

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,483,260 ($28.5M)

Contractor: BAE Systems Survivability Systems LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-02-21

End Date: 2008-09-29

Contract Duration: 221 days

Daily Burn Rate: $128.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: HATCH BRACKET, PINTLE ADAPTER, MTU FOR O-GPK

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFIELD, BUTLER County, OHIO, 45014

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.5 million to BAE SYSTEMS SURVIVABILITY SYSTEMS LLC for work described as: HATCH BRACKET, PINTLE ADAPTER, MTU FOR O-GPK Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. The contract value represents a significant investment in specialized hardware. 3. Performance period is relatively short, suggesting a focused need. 4. The specific item, a pintle adapter, indicates a niche but critical component. 5. No small business set-aside was utilized for this procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $28.5 million for pintle adapters and related hardware is substantial. Without comparable contract data or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The sole-source nature of the award raises concerns about potential overpricing compared to a competitive environment. Benchmarking against similar specialized hardware procurements would be necessary for a more robust evaluation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one bidder, BAE Systems Survivability Systems LLC, was solicited. This approach bypasses the competitive process, which typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. The lack of competition means taxpayers did not benefit from potential cost savings that could have arisen from multiple bids.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no market pressure to offer the lowest possible price.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from the acquisition of critical hardware components. The services delivered include the provision of specialized adapters for military equipment. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within military installations or operational theaters. Workforce implications may involve specialized manufacturing roles within BAE Systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential cost savings.
Lack of transparency in pricing due to non-competitive nature.
Potential for higher costs without market-driven price discovery.

Positive Signals

Award to an established defense contractor with existing capabilities.
Specific hardware addresses a defined military requirement.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the defense manufacturing sector, specifically hardware manufacturing. The market for specialized military components like pintle adapters is often characterized by limited suppliers due to stringent technical requirements and security clearances. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific product details and market analysis, but defense hardware procurement represents a significant portion of the overall federal budget.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to involve significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses based on the available data. The award to a large prime contractor like BAE Systems suggests that the primary focus was on specialized capabilities rather than fostering small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and procurement regulations. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which shifts some risk to the contractor. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Procurement
Military Hardware Manufacturing
BAE Systems Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for cost overruns without competitive pressure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.5 million to BAE SYSTEMS SURVIVABILITY SYSTEMS LLC. HATCH BRACKET, PINTLE ADAPTER, MTU FOR O-GPK

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BAE SYSTEMS SURVIVABILITY SYSTEMS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-02-21. End: 2008-09-29.

What is the specific military application of the pintle adapter and MTU for O-GPK?

The 'O-GPK' likely refers to the Objective Gunner Protection Kit, a modular system designed to protect personnel operating machine guns on military vehicles. The pintle adapter is a crucial component that allows for the mounting and articulation of the weapon system onto the vehicle's pintle mount. The MTU (Mounting, Traversing, and Elevating Unit) would facilitate the precise aiming and stabilization of the weapon. These components are essential for enhancing the survivability and effectiveness of gunners in combat environments, ensuring the weapon can be securely attached and operated reliably under demanding conditions.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis?

Sole-source awards are typically justified when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. This can occur due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling needs where competition is not feasible, or when a specific contractor is the only source capable of meeting stringent technical specifications. For specialized defense hardware like the pintle adapter and MTU, it's possible that BAE Systems possesses unique intellectual property, manufacturing processes, or existing integration knowledge that makes them the only viable option. A detailed justification would have been required by the Department of Defense to support this sole-source determination.

What is the historical spending pattern for this specific item or similar components by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for this specific item requires access to detailed contract databases beyond the provided data. However, the Department of the Army, as part of the Department of Defense, consistently procures a wide range of hardware, including weapon system components, vehicle upgrades, and protective equipment. Spending on such items can fluctuate based on operational tempo, modernization initiatives, and specific platform requirements. Without prior contract awards for this exact 'HATCH BRACKET, PINTLE ADAPTER, MTU FOR O-GPK' by the Army, it's difficult to establish a direct historical trend. However, the significant value of this award suggests a substantial requirement or a new procurement initiative.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for critical military hardware?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award for critical military hardware is the potential for inflated costs due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without competing offers, the government may pay a premium for the goods or services. Another risk is a lack of incentive for the sole-source provider to innovate or improve efficiency, as they face no direct market pressure. Furthermore, reliance on a single supplier can create supply chain vulnerabilities; if the contractor experiences production issues or goes out of business, the military could face significant delays or shortages of essential equipment. This also limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or technologies that might be offered by other potential vendors.

How does the firm-fixed-price contract type impact risk and cost certainty for this procurement?

A Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type is generally preferred by the government as it provides the greatest cost certainty. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes the majority of the risk for cost overruns. The price is set at the time of award and does not change unless the contract scope is formally modified. This means that if BAE Systems' costs to produce the pintle adapters and MTUs increase beyond their initial estimates, the additional expense is borne by the contractor, not the government. Conversely, if their costs are lower than anticipated, the contractor benefits from a higher profit margin. This structure incentivizes the contractor to manage their costs efficiently.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Hardware Manufacturing › Hardware Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: VEHICULAR EQUIPMENT COMPONENTS

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: BAE Systems PLC (UEI: 217304393)

Address: 9113 LE SAINT DR, FAIRFIELD, OH, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,483,260

Exercised Options: $28,483,260

Current Obligation: $28,483,260

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W52H0908D0184

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline