DoD Awards $102.7M Firm Fixed Price Delivery Order to DRS Network & Imaging Systems for Electronic Computer Manufacturing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $102,672,787 ($102.7M)

Contractor: DRS Network & Imaging Systems, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-09-25

End Date: 2011-12-09

Contract Duration: 805 days

Daily Burn Rate: $127.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: DELIVERY ORDER 0037 IS ISSUED ON A FIRM FIXED PRICE BASIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT W15P7T-06-D-J405 AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO.

Place of Performance

Location: MELBOURNE, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32901

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $102.7 million to DRS NETWORK & IMAGING SYSTEMS, LLC for work described as: DELIVERY ORDER 0037 IS ISSUED ON A FIRM FIXED PRICE BASIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT W15P7T-06-D-J405 AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO. Key points: 1. The contract is a firm fixed price (FFP) delivery order, indicating a defined cost for the goods. 2. The award was 'NOT COMPETED', raising questions about potential price discovery and value. 3. The contract duration is 805 days, spanning from September 2009 to December 2011. 4. The total award amount is substantial at $102.7 million. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334111 points to the manufacturing of electronic computers.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract is a firm fixed price (FFP) delivery order. Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to assess if the $102.7 million price represents fair market value compared to similar electronic computer manufacturing contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was not competed, suggesting a sole-source or limited competition award. This lack of competition may have limited price discovery and potentially led to a higher price than if multiple vendors had bid.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition for a $102.7 million contract raises concerns about taxpayer value and whether the most cost-effective solution was secured.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may not have received the best value due to the lack of competitive bidding. The procurement process for this significant contract warrants further scrutiny. The duration of the contract (805 days) suggests a long-term need for these electronic computer manufacturing services. The award to a single vendor without competition could limit market innovation in this sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Potential for overpayment
No small business participation indicated

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract type
Clear delivery order structure

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the Electronic Computer Manufacturing sector (NAICS 334111). Spending in this sector can vary widely based on technological advancements and defense requirements. Without benchmarks for similar sole-source awards, assessing value is challenging.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not awarded to small businesses (sb: false). Further investigation would be needed to determine if small business set-aside opportunities were considered or overlooked.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' status suggests a potential gap in oversight regarding competitive sourcing strategies. Accountability for justifying the lack of competition and ensuring fair pricing is crucial.

Related Government Programs

Electronic Computer Manufacturing
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Potential for inflated pricing
No indication of small business participation
Limited transparency on justification for sole-sourcing
Difficulty in validating fair market value

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $102.7 million to DRS NETWORK & IMAGING SYSTEMS, LLC. DELIVERY ORDER 0037 IS ISSUED ON A FIRM FIXED PRICE BASIS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT W15P7T-06-D-J405 AND MODIFICATIONS THERETO.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DRS NETWORK & IMAGING SYSTEMS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $102.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-09-25. End: 2011-12-09.

What was the justification for not competing this $102.7 million contract, and was a thorough market research conducted to ensure no other vendors could provide the required electronic computer manufa

The justification for not competing this significant contract is not provided in the data. Typically, sole-source awards require extensive documentation demonstrating why competition is not feasible or advantageous. Without this justification, it's impossible to assess if taxpayer funds were used efficiently or if alternative, potentially more cost-effective solutions were overlooked.

Given the firm fixed price nature, how does the $102.7 million award compare to industry benchmarks for similar electronic computer manufacturing contracts, especially considering the lack of competit

Assessing the $102.7 million award against industry benchmarks is difficult without competitive data. Firm Fixed Price contracts aim to provide cost certainty, but the absence of competition means there's no market validation of the price. A comparison would require detailed analysis of similar sole-source contracts or independent cost estimates to determine if the price is reasonable.

What is the long-term effectiveness and impact of awarding large contracts like this without competition on the overall efficiency and innovation within the electronic computer manufacturing sector su

Awarding large contracts without competition can stifle innovation and reduce overall market efficiency by limiting exposure to new technologies and competitive pricing pressures. While it may ensure a specific capability is met, it can disincentivize vendors from developing more cost-effective solutions or exploring alternative approaches, potentially leading to higher long-term costs for the government.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing › Electronic Computer Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT (INCLD FIRMWARE) SOFTWARE,SUPPLIES& SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

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: Leonardo SPA (UEI: 428869465)

Address: 1110 HIBISCUS BLVD W, MELBOURNE, FL, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $102,672,787

Exercised Options: $102,672,787

Current Obligation: $102,672,787

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15P7T06DJ405

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline