Raydon Corporation awarded $13.6M contract for machinery manufacturing services by the Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,631,017 ($13.6M)

Contractor: Raydon Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-08-02

End Date: 2010-09-01

Contract Duration: 1,491 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: PORT ORANGE, VOLUSIA County, FLORIDA, 32128

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.6 million to RAYDON CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 1491 days indicates a significant, long-term commitment. 3. Awarded as Time and Materials, which can pose cost control challenges if not managed closely. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 333319 points to specialized machinery manufacturing. 5. The contract was awarded to Raydon Corporation, a single entity. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major defense agency.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $13.6 million over approximately four years suggests a moderate investment. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively benchmark value for money. However, Time and Materials contracts inherently carry a higher risk of cost overruns compared to fixed-price contracts if not meticulously monitored for efficiency and necessity of labor hours and materials.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which is an unusual designation. Typically, 'Full and Open Competition' implies broad solicitation. The 'After Exclusion of Sources' clause suggests that while the competition was open, certain sources may have been excluded for specific reasons, potentially impacting the breadth of competition. The number of bidders is not specified, but the designation implies an attempt to solicit from a wide range of qualified offerors.

Taxpayer Impact: This procurement method, while aiming for openness, could potentially limit the number of viable bidders if exclusions were significant, possibly impacting the government's ability to secure the most competitive pricing.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel and units requiring the specialized machinery manufactured under this contract. The services delivered involve the manufacturing of commercial and service industry machinery. The geographic impact is primarily tied to the location of Raydon Corporation (Florida) and the deployment of the machinery. Workforce implications include employment opportunities within Raydon Corporation and its supply chain.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'Time and Materials' contract type introduces inherent cost uncertainty and requires robust oversight to prevent scope creep and ensure efficient resource utilization.
The 'After Exclusion of Sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation to understand the rationale and potential impact on competition and pricing.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it challenging to assess the true value and effectiveness of the contract beyond the financial award.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through a 'Full and Open Competition' process, indicating an effort to engage a broad market.
The long contract duration (1491 days) suggests a stable, long-term need for the manufactured goods, providing predictability for the contractor and potentially fostering specialized capabilities.
The award to a single entity, Raydon Corporation, implies they possess the specific capabilities required for this specialized machinery manufacturing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader 'Manufacturing' sector, specifically 'Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing' (NAICS 333319). This sub-sector involves the production of a wide array of machinery used in various commercial and service operations. Federal spending in this area often supports defense readiness, infrastructure, or specialized government operational needs. Benchmarking would require comparison to similar contracts for specialized machinery procurement by defense agencies, considering factors like complexity, volume, and technological requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false) and there is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses (sb: false). This suggests that the procurement likely targeted larger, more specialized manufacturers capable of fulfilling the contract requirements, potentially limiting opportunities for small businesses within this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. As a Time and Materials contract, rigorous monitoring of labor hours, material costs, and adherence to the scope of work would be crucial. Transparency is facilitated by contract award databases, but detailed operational oversight and accountability measures are internal to the agency and contractor. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Industrial Base Manufacturing
Military Equipment Procurement
Commercial Machinery Manufacturing
Department of Defense Supply Chain

Risk Flags

Contract Type Risk (Time and Materials)
Potential Limited Competition (Exclusion of Sources)
Lack of Detailed Performance Metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.6 million to RAYDON CORPORATION. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RAYDON 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 $13.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-08-02. End: 2010-09-01.

What is the specific type of machinery being manufactured under this contract and what is its intended use by the Department of the Army?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 333319, 'Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing.' This broad category encompasses a wide range of machinery not elsewhere classified, used in various commercial and service sectors. Without more specific contract details, the exact type of machinery is unknown. However, given the awarding agency is the Department of the Army, it is plausible that the machinery is intended for logistical support, maintenance operations, training simulations, or other specialized military applications that require non-standard or uniquely configured equipment. Further analysis of the contract statement of work would be necessary to identify the precise machinery and its operational purpose within the Army's structure.

How does the $13.6 million award amount compare to historical spending on similar machinery manufacturing contracts by the Department of the Army?

Comparing the $13.6 million award to historical spending requires access to a broader dataset of Department of the Army contracts within the 'Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing' (NAICS 333319) category. A preliminary assessment suggests this is a moderately sized contract, spanning over four years. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to analyze the average award values, contract durations, and the complexity of machinery procured in similar historical contracts. For instance, if the Army typically procures highly specialized, technologically advanced machinery, $13.6 million might represent a standard investment. Conversely, if similar machinery is often acquired through larger, multi-year programs or multiple smaller awards, this figure could be considered average or even low. Without specific comparable contract data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this award is high, low, or average.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'Time and Materials' (T&M) contract type for this specific machinery manufacturing requirement?

The primary risk with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for machinery manufacturing is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M agreements allow the contractor to bill for actual labor hours and material costs incurred. If not managed diligently, this can lead to the final cost exceeding initial estimates. For specialized machinery, this risk is amplified if design changes are frequent, if unforeseen technical challenges arise during manufacturing, or if the contractor inflates labor hours or material markups. Effective oversight by the Department of the Army is critical, involving detailed tracking of all billable hours, verification of material invoices, and strict adherence to the defined scope of work to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives good value.

What does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation imply about the competitive landscape and potential impact on pricing?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' presents a nuanced view of the competition. 'Full and Open Competition' generally signifies an intent to solicit offers from all responsible sources. However, the 'After Exclusion of Sources' clause indicates that specific potential sources were deliberately excluded from the competition. The reasons for exclusion are not provided but could range from failure to meet pre-qualification criteria, past performance issues, or specific national security concerns. This exclusion, depending on the number and significance of the excluded sources, could potentially limit the overall competitive pressure. If only a few sources remained after exclusions, the government might not achieve the most aggressive pricing possible compared to a scenario with broader, unrestricted competition. It suggests a balance between ensuring a competitive process and meeting specific, potentially restrictive, requirements.

What is Raydon Corporation's track record with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense, prior to this award?

To assess Raydon Corporation's track record, a review of their past federal contract awards, particularly those with the Department of Defense and other agencies, would be necessary. This would involve examining the value, duration, type, and performance outcomes of previous contracts. Key indicators to look for include on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of goods or services provided, and any history of contract disputes, terminations, or performance issues. A positive track record with similar types of machinery manufacturing or defense-related contracts would suggest a lower risk for this current award. Conversely, a history of performance problems or significant cost overruns on prior contracts could raise concerns about Raydon's ability to successfully execute this $13.6 million award effectively and efficiently.

How does the duration of this contract (1491 days, approx. 4 years) align with typical procurement cycles for specialized machinery within the defense sector?

A contract duration of approximately four years for specialized machinery manufacturing is not uncommon within the defense sector, especially for complex or custom-built equipment. Defense programs often require long lead times for design, development, testing, and production. Such durations allow for stable production planning, potential for phased delivery, and the development of specialized manufacturing capabilities by the contractor. Compared to simpler, off-the-shelf procurements which might be shorter, a four-year term suggests a significant investment in a particular type of machinery critical to the Army's operations. This extended period also allows for potential modifications or upgrades during the contract life, which can be managed under T&M terms, though requiring careful oversight.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Contractor Details

Address: 210 FENTRESS BLVD, DAYTONA BEACH, FL, 06

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6133901D0723

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline