DoD's $57.7M R&D Contract with Radiance Technologies Faces Scrutiny Over Competition and Value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $57,755,591 ($57.8M)

Contractor: Radiance Technologies Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-04-01

End Date: 2018-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,582 days

Daily Burn Rate: $36.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: BASE ORDERING PERIOD - LABOR (DELIVERY ORDER/TASK ORDER AWARD)

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35805

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $57.8 million to RADIANCE TECHNOLOGIES INC for work described as: BASE ORDERING PERIOD - LABOR (DELIVERY ORDER/TASK ORDER AWARD) Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Radiance Technologies Inc. for Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences totaled $57.7 million. 2. Competition was conducted under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' raising questions about the extent of market engagement. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. 4. The sector is R&D, a critical area for defense innovation, but also one prone to unpredictable outcomes and cost escalation.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, while common in R&D, necessitates robust oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable. Without detailed cost breakdowns and performance metrics, it's difficult to definitively assess value against industry benchmarks.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' indicates a limited competition, potentially restricting the pool of qualified bidders. This method can impact price discovery, as fewer competitors may lead to less aggressive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition raises concerns about whether taxpayers received the best possible price for the R&D services rendered.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may not have received the most competitive pricing due to the limited nature of the competition. The R&D outcomes are crucial for national security, but the contract's structure warrants close monitoring for efficiency. The exclusion of sources in the competition process could limit the government's access to innovative solutions from a wider range of companies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition method
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type
Lack of detailed cost performance data

Positive Signals

Awarded to a single entity for specialized R&D
Contract duration of over 4 years indicates a sustained need

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically for Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. Spending in this area is vital for technological advancement but often involves higher risk and less predictable cost structures compared to standard procurement.

Small Business Impact

There is no specific indication in the provided data whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors or prime contractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure requires diligent oversight to manage costs and ensure performance objectives are met. The 'Exclusion of Sources' clause necessitates careful justification and monitoring to ensure fair competition principles are upheld.

Related Government Programs

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for inflated costs due to CPFF structure
Limited competition may have reduced price competitiveness
Lack of transparency regarding source exclusion justification
Difficulty in assessing R&D value without detailed performance data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $57.8 million to RADIANCE TECHNOLOGIES INC. BASE ORDERING PERIOD - LABOR (DELIVERY ORDER/TASK ORDER AWARD)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RADIANCE TECHNOLOGIES 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 $57.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-04-01. End: 2018-07-31.

What specific R&D advancements were achieved under this contract, and how do they align with the initial objectives and projected costs?

Assessing the specific R&D advancements requires access to technical reports and performance reviews tied to the contract. Without this detailed information, it's challenging to evaluate the return on investment. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure means the government pays actual costs plus a fixed fee, so the value is determined by the successful and efficient completion of the R&D goals within the agreed-upon fee.

How was the 'exclusion of sources' justified, and what steps were taken to ensure the limited competition still yielded competitive pricing?

The justification for excluding sources typically involves demonstrating that only specific contractors possess unique capabilities or that a broader competition would be impractical or detrimental to the government's interests. To ensure competitive pricing, the agency likely relied on pre-negotiated rates, market research, or comparison to similar contracts, though the effectiveness of this is harder to gauge without full market visibility.

What mechanisms were in place to control costs and prevent potential overruns given the Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type?

Effective cost control under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract relies on robust government oversight, including regular audits, performance reviews, and strict adherence to the contract's scope. Mechanisms like target cost reviews, Earned Value Management (EVM), and clear communication channels with the contractor are crucial for identifying and mitigating potential cost overruns before they escalate.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W9113M11R0003

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Radiance Technologies Inc.

Address: 350 WYNN DR NW, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35805

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $65,902,796

Exercised Options: $65,902,796

Current Obligation: $57,755,591

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9113M13D0006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline