DoD's $9.9M chemical agent detector contract awarded to Smiths Detection Inc. raises value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,933,696 ($9.9M)

Contractor: Smiths Detection Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-12-20

End Date: 2008-01-31

Contract Duration: 42 days

Daily Burn Rate: $236.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ALARM, CHEM AGENT, AUTO M-22

Place of Performance

Location: EDGEWOOD, HARFORD County, MARYLAND, 21040

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $9.9 million to SMITHS DETECTION INC. for work described as: ALARM, CHEM AGENT, AUTO M-22 Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its short duration and limited scope. 2. Lack of competition suggests potential for inflated pricing and reduced value for taxpayers. 3. The sole-source award bypasses competitive processes, limiting opportunities for cost savings. 4. Performance context is minimal, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the delivered goods. 5. The contract falls within the 'Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing' sector. 6. Oversight mechanisms for this sole-source award need careful examination to ensure accountability.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $9.9 million for a 42-day delivery period seems disproportionately high, especially considering it was a sole-source award. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The provided data does not offer enough detail to assess the specific capabilities or quantities of the M-22 chemical agent detectors, making a precise value-for-money assessment challenging. However, the high dollar amount for a short-term delivery order warrants scrutiny.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning the Department of the Army did not conduct a competitive bidding process. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required goods or services. While it can expedite procurement, it significantly limits price discovery and may lead to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract. The absence of multiple bidders means the government did not benefit from the potential cost reductions and innovation that competition can foster.

Taxpayer Impact: The sole-source nature of this award means taxpayers likely paid a premium. Without competition, there's no pressure on the contractor to offer the lowest possible price, and the government missed out on potential savings that could have been realized through a bidding process.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who receive specialized equipment for detecting chemical agents. The contract delivers critical equipment for defense and security operations. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within military installations where the equipment is deployed. Workforce implications are minimal, as this is a procurement of goods rather than services requiring extensive labor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potentially inflates costs.
High dollar amount for a short-term delivery order raises questions about value for money.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess effectiveness.
Limited information on the specific capabilities of the M-22 detector.

Positive Signals

Procurement of essential defense equipment for national security.
Award to an established contractor (Smiths Detection Inc.) may indicate reliability in product delivery.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the 'Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing' sector, specifically related to defense and security equipment. The market for chemical agent detection systems is specialized, often dominated by a few key players due to the high technical requirements and stringent quality standards. Comparable spending in this niche sector can vary widely based on technological advancements, threat levels, and specific military needs. The $9.9 million figure for this particular order, while substantial, needs to be viewed within the context of the broader defense procurement landscape for specialized detection equipment.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have involved small business set-asides, as indicated by the 'sb': false field. The award was made to a single, likely large, contractor. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or opportunities for small businesses within this specific procurement. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this particular contract is likely negligible.

Oversight & Accountability

Given this was a sole-source award, oversight is critical. The Department of the Army is responsible for ensuring the necessity of the sole-source justification and the reasonableness of the price. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and the evaluation of the contractor's proposal is essential. Further review would be needed to ascertain if any Inspector General oversight was applied or if specific reporting requirements were mandated for this delivery order.

Related Government Programs

Chemical Agent Detection Systems
Department of Defense Procurement
Sole-Source Contracts
Defense Equipment Manufacturing

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
High value for a short-duration delivery order.
Limited performance data available for assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $9.9 million to SMITHS DETECTION INC.. ALARM, CHEM AGENT, AUTO M-22

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SMITHS DETECTION INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-12-20. End: 2008-01-31.

What is the specific model and capability of the M-22 chemical agent detector procured under this contract?

The provided data identifies the item as 'AUTO M-22' and categorizes it under 'CHEM AGENT, ALARM'. While the specific model is M-22, the data does not detail its precise capabilities, such as the types of chemical agents it can detect, its sensitivity levels, response time, or operational range. The 'AUTO' prefix might suggest an automated detection or alarm function. Further investigation into Smiths Detection Inc.'s product line and military specifications for the M-22 would be necessary to fully understand its technical specifications and operational context within the Department of the Army's requirements.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to Smiths Detection Inc.?

The data explicitly states the contract type as 'NOT COMPETED', which in this context, given the sole-source award, implies a justification was made for not pursuing a competitive bidding process. Common reasons for sole-source awards include the urgency of need, the unavailability of the item from any other source, or the existence of unique capabilities possessed by a single contractor. Without access to the official justification documentation, the precise reason remains unknown. However, for a specialized item like a chemical agent detector, it's plausible that Smiths Detection Inc. held specific patents, unique manufacturing capabilities, or existing system compatibility requirements that led to the sole-source determination.

How does the $9.9 million award amount compare to historical spending on similar chemical agent detection equipment by the Department of Defense?

Direct comparison of this $9.9 million award to historical spending is challenging without more granular data on past procurements of the M-22 or comparable systems. The provided data indicates this was a single delivery order with a short duration (42 days). If this $9.9 million represents a significant quantity or a particularly advanced version of the M-22, it might be in line with specialized defense equipment costs. However, if it's for a relatively small number of units or standard models, the price per unit could be high. Analyzing trends in defense spending on chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) detection equipment over several fiscal years would provide better context for assessing whether this award represents an anomaly or a typical expenditure.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source procurement of critical defense equipment like chemical agent detectors?

Sole-source procurements of critical defense equipment carry several risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can lead to inflated prices, meaning taxpayers may overpay for the equipment. Secondly, it can stifle innovation, as there is less incentive for the sole provider to invest in developing more advanced or cost-effective solutions. Thirdly, it creates a dependency on a single supplier, which can be problematic if that supplier faces production issues, financial instability, or decides to discontinue the product line. Finally, without competitive benchmarking, it is harder to ensure the government is receiving the best possible value and that the equipment meets the highest standards of performance and reliability.

What is the track record of Smiths Detection Inc. as a contractor for the Department of Defense, particularly concerning chemical agent detection systems?

Smiths Detection Inc. is a known entity in the defense sector, specializing in security and detection technologies, including chemical agent detection. While this specific contract data doesn't detail their overall track record, the company has a history of supplying similar equipment to military and government agencies worldwide. Their longevity and continued presence in this market suggest a level of capability and reliability. However, a comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their performance on other contracts, including delivery timeliness, product quality, adherence to specifications, and any past issues or disputes with government agencies. The fact that they were awarded this sole-source contract might imply they are a primary or sole provider for this specific type of equipment.

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: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Smiths Group PLC (UEI: 210273256)

Address: 2202 LAKESIDE BLVD, EDGEWOOD, MD, 21040

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,933,696

Exercised Options: $9,933,696

Current Obligation: $9,933,696

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911SR08D0008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline