DoD's $29.15M CBMS II Systems contract awarded to Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation for analytical instruments

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,150,013 ($29.2M)

Contractor: Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-03-20

End Date: 2012-04-30

Contract Duration: 1,137 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CBMS II SYSTEMS

Place of Performance

Location: POMONA, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 91767

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.2 million to HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION for work described as: CBMS II SYSTEMS Key points: 1. The contract's value of $29.15 million over approximately three years suggests a significant investment in analytical laboratory instrumentation. 2. Awarded as 'NOT COMPETED', this indicates a potential lack of competitive pressure on pricing and innovation. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to transfer some risk to the contractor, but the absence of competition limits benchmarking. 4. The contract falls under the 'Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing' NAICS code, placing it within a specialized manufacturing sector. 5. The sole award to Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation raises questions about the availability of alternative suppliers or the specific nature of the requirement. 6. The contract's duration of over three years implies a need for sustained supply or development of these specialized instruments.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of competitive bids. The $29.15 million awarded over roughly three years for analytical laboratory instruments requires careful scrutiny. Without comparable contracts or market data, it's difficult to definitively assess if this represents a fair price. The 'NOT COMPETED' status inherently limits the ability to determine optimal value for money.

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 the government did not benefit from the price discovery and innovation that typically arises from a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there is a higher risk of paying a premium for goods or services, as the government could not leverage competitive offers to secure the best possible price.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army is the primary beneficiary, acquiring critical analytical laboratory instruments. These instruments are likely used for research, testing, or quality control purposes within military operations or facilities. The contract's geographic impact is centered in California, where the contractor is located, suggesting potential local economic benefits. The acquisition of specialized equipment may support a workforce skilled in operating and maintaining advanced analytical instrumentation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Sole-source awards can limit access to potentially better or more innovative solutions from other vendors.
Absence of competitive benchmarking makes it difficult to assess true value for money.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract type helps to control costs by shifting some risk to the contractor.
Award to an established company like Hamilton Sundstrand may indicate reliability and proven capability.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under the Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing sector, a niche within the broader manufacturing industry. This sector is characterized by high-technology products requiring significant research and development. The market size for such specialized instruments can vary, but government contracts often represent a substantial portion of demand for high-end analytical equipment used in defense, research, and industrial applications. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the instruments procured.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. The award to a single, likely larger, entity suggests that the procurement was focused on specialized capabilities that may not have been readily available from small business contractors. This could limit opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract's value chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and financial management regulations. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified goods. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award, making detailed public scrutiny of the pricing and selection process more challenging. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Procurement
Analytical Instrument Manufacturing
Federal Laboratory Equipment

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition.
Lack of detailed instrument specifications hinders value assessment.
Contract duration implies long-term need or development.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.2 million to HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION. CBMS II SYSTEMS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-03-20. End: 2012-04-30.

What specific types of analytical laboratory instruments were procured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract (CBMS II SYSTEMS) is associated with NAICS code 334516, 'Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing.' However, the specific types of instruments are not detailed. These could range widely from mass spectrometers, chromatographs, microscopes, or specialized testing equipment used for various military applications such as environmental monitoring, materials analysis, or biological detection. Without further documentation, the exact nature of the instruments remains unspecified, making it difficult to assess their criticality or technological sophistication.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The contract was designated as 'NOT COMPETED,' signifying a sole-source award. This typically occurs when the government determines that only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. Reasons can include proprietary technology, unique capabilities, urgent and compelling needs where competition is not feasible, or if the cost of competition would outweigh the benefits. For this specific contract, the rationale for the sole-source award is not provided in the summary data, but it suggests that Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation was deemed the only viable option at the time of procurement.

What is Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation's track record with the Department of Defense?

Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, now part of RTX (formerly Raytheon Technologies), has a significant history of contracting with the Department of Defense. They are known for providing a wide range of aerospace and defense products, including propulsion systems, power generation, and avionics. While this specific contract focuses on analytical instruments, their broader portfolio indicates a substantial and established relationship with the DoD across various defense programs. Their long-standing presence suggests a capacity to meet complex military requirements.

How does the $29.15 million contract value compare to similar procurements for analytical instruments?

Direct comparison of the $29.15 million contract value is difficult without knowing the exact specifications and quantities of the analytical instruments procured. However, for large-scale, specialized analytical equipment, this figure represents a substantial investment. Government procurements for advanced scientific instrumentation can range from tens of thousands to tens of millions of dollars, depending on the complexity, technology, and intended application. The sole-source nature of this award prevents a direct value-for-money comparison against competitive bids.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for analytical instruments?

The primary risk of a sole-source award is the potential for inflated pricing due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without competing bids, the government may not achieve the lowest possible price. Additionally, sole-source awards can limit access to potentially superior or more cost-effective technologies offered by other manufacturers. There's also a risk that the government becomes overly reliant on a single supplier, potentially impacting future sourcing options and negotiation leverage. Ensuring the contractor's performance meets all requirements becomes paramount.

What is the historical spending pattern for analytical laboratory instruments by the Department of Defense?

Historical spending by the Department of Defense on analytical laboratory instruments is likely substantial and varied, reflecting the diverse needs across its branches and research facilities. While specific aggregate data for this category isn't provided, the DoD consistently invests in advanced scientific and testing equipment to support its operational, research, and development missions. Spending patterns would fluctuate based on technological advancements, evolving threats, and specific program requirements. Contracts like CBMS II SYSTEMS represent individual components of this broader, ongoing investment in scientific capabilities.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W911SR07R0033

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp (UEI: 001344142)

Address: 2771 N GAREY AVE, POMONA, CA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,150,013

Exercised Options: $29,150,013

Current Obligation: $29,150,013

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911SR09D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline