DoD awards $9.8M for Military Working Dog Equipment, with EAI Corporation as the sole awardee

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,882,956 ($9.9M)

Contractor: EAI Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-03-30

End Date: 2009-12-30

Contract Duration: 1,006 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE)

Sector: Defense

Official Description: MILITARY WORKING DOG EQUIPMENT

Place of Performance

Location: ABINGDON, HARFORD County, MARYLAND, 21009

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $9.9 million to EAI CORPORATION for work described as: MILITARY WORKING DOG EQUIPMENT Key points: 1. The contract value of $9.8M for specialized equipment suggests a significant investment in canine support capabilities. 2. The award was made under full and open competition, indicating a broad market search. 3. The duration of the contract (over 2 years) implies a need for sustained supply and support. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 423990 points to a wholesale trade of miscellaneous durable goods. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, highlighting its role in military logistics and operations. 6. The absence of small business set-aside indicates the primary contractor is not a small business, and subcontracting opportunities may be limited.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of $9.8M for Military Working Dog Equipment is challenging without specific itemization and market data. However, the contract duration of over two years suggests a steady supply chain requirement. The award amount appears reasonable for specialized equipment supporting a critical military function, but a detailed cost breakdown would be necessary for a definitive value assessment. Compared to similar contracts for specialized military equipment, the price point seems within a plausible range, assuming high-quality, durable goods.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of 9 bids indicates a healthy level of interest and engagement from the market. This competitive process is generally expected to drive better pricing and innovation for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process is beneficial for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value by encouraging a wide range of offers and potentially lower prices through market forces.

Public Impact

Military working dogs and their handlers benefit from access to essential, high-quality equipment. The contract supports the operational readiness and effectiveness of military canine units. The services delivered likely include the provision of durable gear, training aids, and maintenance supplies for the dogs. The geographic impact is likely widespread, supporting military installations where working dogs are deployed globally. Workforce implications include ensuring the availability of necessary equipment for military personnel responsible for canine operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The market for military working dog equipment falls within the broader defense logistics and specialized equipment sector. This sector is characterized by stringent quality requirements, long product lifecycles, and a demand for durable, reliable goods. Spending in this area is driven by the operational needs of military and law enforcement agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without detailed specifications, but the $9.8M award reflects a significant commitment to equipping these specialized units.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the awardee, EAI Corporation, is not listed as a small business. This suggests that the primary contract was awarded to a larger entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award, which could limit opportunities for smaller firms to participate in this specific contract's fulfillment.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would include performance monitoring, adherence to contract terms, and quality control of the delivered equipment. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific details of the equipment and pricing may be sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, eai-corporation, military-working-dog-equipment, durable-goods, wholesale-trade, full-and-open-competition, multi-year-contract, maryland, non-small-business-award

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $9.9 million to EAI CORPORATION. MILITARY WORKING DOG EQUIPMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EAI 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 $9.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-03-30. End: 2009-12-30.

What specific types of equipment were procured under this $9.8M contract for Military Working Dog Equipment?

The provided data does not specify the exact types of equipment procured under this $9.8M contract. However, based on the description 'MILITARY WORKING DOG EQUIPMENT' and the NAICS code 423990 (Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers), it can be inferred that the contract likely covered a range of durable goods essential for the care, training, and operational deployment of military working dogs. This could include items such as specialized harnesses, protective gear (like vests and boots), muzzles, leashes, feeding and watering equipment, grooming tools, transport crates, and potentially training aids. The exact composition and quantity of these items would determine the overall value and suitability of the procurement.

How does the contract duration of over two years (1006 days) impact the value proposition for the government?

A contract duration of over two years for military working dog equipment suggests a need for sustained supply and potentially ongoing support or maintenance. From a value perspective, a longer duration can offer price stability, as the government locks in rates for an extended period, potentially shielding it from short-term market fluctuations. It also reduces the administrative burden and cost associated with frequent re-competition. However, it also carries risks, such as the possibility of technological obsolescence if the equipment is highly specialized and rapidly evolving, or potential price increases if raw material costs or manufacturing expenses rise significantly over the contract term. The government's ability to negotiate favorable terms for such a long period is crucial for maximizing value.

What does the fact that 9 bids were received under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' signify for price discovery?

The receipt of 9 bids under a 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' is a strong positive indicator for price discovery. It signifies that the government's solicitation was widely disseminated, and a substantial number of potential vendors found the opportunity attractive enough to invest resources in preparing and submitting proposals. A larger pool of bidders generally leads to more robust competition, forcing each bidder to offer competitive pricing and terms to win the contract. This increased competition enhances the likelihood that the government will secure the best possible price for the required military working dog equipment, reflecting a more accurate market valuation.

What is the track record of EAI CORPORATION in supplying similar military equipment?

The provided data identifies EAI CORPORATION as the awardee but does not offer details on their specific track record in supplying military working dog equipment or similar items. To assess their track record, further investigation would be required, including reviewing past performance evaluations on federal contracts, examining their company history, and looking for any publicly available information regarding their experience in defense contracting, particularly in specialized equipment. Without this information, it is difficult to definitively gauge their reliability, quality of past work, and ability to meet the demands of this specific contract.

How does the spending of $9.8M on military working dog equipment compare to historical patterns or other agencies?

The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for military working dog equipment or comparative spending data from other agencies. To make such a comparison, one would need access to historical contract databases (e.g., FPDS) to analyze previous awards for similar equipment, potentially across different branches of the military or even federal law enforcement agencies that utilize working dogs. Analyzing the trend of spending over time and comparing the per-unit cost or total contract value against similar procurements would provide context on whether $9.8M represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in this capability.

Are there any specific risk indicators associated with this contract award to EAI CORPORATION?

Based solely on the provided data, there are no explicit risk indicators mentioned regarding this contract award to EAI CORPORATION. However, potential risks in any federal contract can include factors not detailed here, such as the contractor's financial stability, past performance issues (if any), the complexity of the equipment requiring specialized manufacturing or integration, or potential supply chain vulnerabilities. The fact that it was a full and open competition with multiple bids might mitigate some risks by ensuring a competitive selection process. A comprehensive risk assessment would require access to contractor performance data, financial health reports, and details about the specific nature of the equipment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Wholesale TradeMiscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant WholesalersOther Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers

Product/Service Code: FIRE/RESCUE/SAFETY; ENVIRO PROTECT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE) (2)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Leidos Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 611641312)

Address: 1308 CONTINENTAL DRIVE, ABINGDON, MD, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,882,956

Exercised Options: $9,882,956

Current Obligation: $9,882,956

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: M6700404D0039

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2007-03-30

Current End Date: 2009-12-30

Potential End Date: 2009-12-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2009-09-29

More Contracts from EAI Corporation

View all EAI Corporation federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending