DoD awards $19.4M for Hazard-Detecting Instruments, highlighting limited competition and potential cost concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,298,144 ($27.3M)

Contractor: Smiths Detection Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-03-30

End Date: 2007-03-03

Contract Duration: 338 days

Daily Burn Rate: $80.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200607!600500!2100!W911SR!USA MATERIEL COMMAND ACQUISITION!W911SR06D0001 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20060330!20070302!194239018!047108485!210273256!N!SMITHS DETECTION-EDGEWOOD INC !2202 LAKESIDE BLVD !EDGEWOOD !MD!21040!25125!021!24!EDGEWOOD !FREDERICK !MARYLAND !+000027306874!N!N!000000000000!6665!HAZARD-DETECTING INSTRUMENTS & APPARATUS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !* !334519!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!U!J!1!001!N!1B!Z!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: EDGEWOOD, HARFORD County, MARYLAND, 21040

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $27.3 million to SMITHS DETECTION INC. for work described as: 200607!600500!2100!W911SR!USA MATERIEL COMMAND ACQUISITION!W911SR06D0001 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20060330!20070302!194239018!047108485!210273256!N!SMITHS DETECTION-EDGEWOOD INC !2202 LAKESIDE BLVD !EDGEWOOD !MD!21040!25125!021!24!EDGEWOOD !FRED… Key points: 1. The contract for hazard-detecting instruments was awarded to Smiths Detection-Edgewood Inc. for $19.4 million. 2. Awarded under a sole-source justification, raising questions about price discovery and competition. 3. The product service code (PSC) is 6665, related to hazard-detecting instruments and apparatus. 4. The contract duration was 338 days, indicating a relatively short-term need.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $19.4 million for hazard-detecting instruments appears high given the short duration and lack of competitive bidding. Benchmarking against similar sole-source contracts is difficult, but the absence of competition suggests potential for overpricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning only one vendor was solicited. This significantly limits price discovery and competition, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition in this sole-source award may result in taxpayers paying a premium for these hazard-detecting instruments.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may have paid more than necessary due to the sole-source nature of the award. The acquisition of specialized hazard-detecting instruments is critical for defense operations. The limited competition raises concerns about the government's ability to secure the best value. Future acquisitions in this category should explore competitive bidding to ensure cost-effectiveness.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competition and price discovery.
Potential for overpayment due to lack of competitive bidding.
Short contract duration may indicate a specific, immediate need rather than a long-term strategy.

Positive Signals

Acquisition of critical hazard-detecting equipment.
Contract awarded to a known entity in the defense sector.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the defense sector, specifically for specialized equipment. Spending benchmarks for hazard-detecting instruments can vary widely based on technological sophistication and quantity, but competitive awards typically yield better pricing.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication in the provided data whether small businesses were involved in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. The sole-source nature of the award further reduces opportunities for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The sole-source justification warrants scrutiny to ensure it was appropriate and that all regulatory requirements for limited competition were met. Post-award oversight should focus on contract performance and value.

Related Government Programs

Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition.
Potential for inflated pricing.
Lack of transparency in price justification.
Limited opportunity for small business participation.
Need for detailed justification for sole-source award.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $27.3 million to SMITHS DETECTION INC.. 200607!600500!2100!W911SR!USA MATERIEL COMMAND ACQUISITION!W911SR06D0001 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20060330!20070302!194239018!047108485!210273256!N!SMITHS DETECTION-EDGEWOOD INC !2202 LAKESIDE BLVD !EDGEWOOD !MD!21040!25125!021!24!EDGEWOOD !FREDERICK !MARYLAND !+000027306874!N!N!000000000000!6665!HAZARD-DETECTING INSTRUMENTS & APPARATUS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !* !334519!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SMITHS DETECTION INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $27.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-03-30. End: 2007-03-03.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates a sole-source award ('CT': 'NOT COMPETED'). A detailed justification would typically be documented by the contracting officer, outlining reasons such as urgency, unique capabilities of the vendor, or lack of other responsible sources. Without this documentation, it's impossible to fully assess the necessity of the sole-source approach.

How does the unit cost of these hazard-detecting instruments compare to similar commercially available or previously procured items?

Direct comparison is challenging without specific unit details and market research data. However, the absence of competition inherently limits the ability to establish a competitive benchmark. A review of historical pricing for similar items, or a market survey conducted post-award, would be necessary to assess if the $19.4 million award represented fair and reasonable pricing.

What is the long-term strategy for acquiring hazard-detecting instruments, and will future procurements involve competitive bidding?

The short duration (338 days) suggests this award may fulfill an immediate or interim need. A comprehensive long-term strategy should be in place to ensure sustained availability of critical equipment. Future procurements should prioritize competitive solicitations to leverage market forces and achieve better value for taxpayer funds, unless a compelling reason for sole-sourcing persists.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Other Measuring and Controlling Device 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: Smiths Group PLC (UEI: 210273256)

Address: 2202 LAKESIDE BLVD, EDGEWOOD, MD, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911SR06D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline