DOT awards $7.17M sole-source contract for electronic equipment repair to Eaton Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $7,173,141 ($7.2M)

Contractor: Eaton Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2025-05-13

End Date: 2026-04-30

Contract Duration: 352 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: EATON CDLS SUPPORT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE MAY 1, 2025 THRU APRIL 30, 2026 COR: WILLIAM COMPTON

Place of Performance

Location: RALEIGH, WAKE County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27615

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $7.2 million to EATON CORPORATION for work described as: EATON CDLS SUPPORT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE MAY 1, 2025 THRU APRIL 30, 2026 COR: WILLIAM COMPTON Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting competitive pricing benefits. 2. Performance period of one year suggests a need for ongoing maintenance services. 3. The North Carolina location may indicate regional support requirements. 4. Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government. 5. No small business set-aside was utilized for this procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $7.17 million for a one-year period for electronic and precision equipment repair and maintenance appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized services. However, without specific details on the equipment being serviced or the scope of work, a direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. The sole-source nature of the award means that a competitive benchmark for pricing is unavailable, making it difficult to definitively assess value for money. Further analysis would require understanding the criticality of the equipment and the availability of alternative service providers.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning that only one vendor, Eaton Corporation, was solicited. This approach is typically used when only one responsible source is available or when there is a compelling justification for not seeking competition. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from multiple bids, which could have potentially driven down the price through a competitive bidding process. The justification for this sole-source award would need to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure it aligns with federal procurement regulations.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition for this contract means taxpayers may not have received the lowest possible price for the services rendered. Without a competitive bidding process, there is a risk that the awarded price is higher than what could have been achieved in an open market scenario.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) benefits from this contract by ensuring the continued operation and maintenance of critical electronic and precision equipment. Services delivered include repair and maintenance, crucial for the reliability of aviation infrastructure. The contract's impact is likely concentrated in North Carolina, where the contractor is located, suggesting regional support for FAA operations. The contract supports specialized technical roles within Eaton Corporation, contributing to the skilled workforce in the electronics repair sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source procurement.
Limited visibility into the specific equipment being serviced and its criticality.
No small business participation noted, potentially missing opportunities to support smaller enterprises.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to an established corporation (Eaton) may indicate reliability and expertise.
Specific contract for repair and maintenance suggests a focus on operational continuity.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the 'Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance' sector, a critical component of the broader aerospace and defense industries. This sector involves specialized technical services essential for maintaining the operational readiness of complex systems. Spending in this area is often driven by the need for specialized expertise and the high cost of replacement parts or systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within government-wide contracts for maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services for electronic systems.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have any specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific procurement were not actively pursued through set-aside mechanisms. The impact on the small business ecosystem is neutral to negative, as it represents a missed opportunity for small businesses specializing in electronic repair to secure a government contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a division of the Department of Transportation. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), William Compton, is responsible for monitoring the contractor's performance and ensuring compliance with the contract terms. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, but contract performance data and payment information are typically available through federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Maintenance Contracts
Department of Transportation IT and Equipment Support
Electronic Equipment Repair Services
Sole-Source Procurement Justifications

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
Potential for higher costs due to lack of competition.
Limited transparency on justification for sole-source procurement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $7.2 million to EATON CORPORATION. EATON CDLS SUPPORT PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE MAY 1, 2025 THRU APRIL 30, 2026 COR: WILLIAM COMPTON

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EATON CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $7.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-05-13. End: 2026-04-30.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to Eaton Corporation?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' signifying a sole-source award. Federal procurement regulations (41 U.S.C. § 3304 and FAR Part 6) allow for sole-source procurements under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source is capable of providing the required service, or when there is a compelling urgency. Without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), the precise reason remains unknown. However, common justifications include unique technical capabilities, proprietary technology, or the need for compatibility with existing systems where only one vendor can provide the necessary support. The FAA would have had to document and approve this justification to proceed with a sole-source award.

How does the $7.17 million contract value compare to historical spending on similar electronic equipment repair services by the FAA?

Comparing the $7.17 million contract value requires access to historical spending data for similar services by the FAA. The provided data includes the NAICS code '811210' (Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance), which is a broad category. To make a meaningful comparison, one would need to identify previous contracts with the FAA for the repair and maintenance of specific types of electronic equipment, ideally with similar scope and duration. Without this granular historical data, it's difficult to ascertain if this award represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending. The one-year period of performance is relatively short, suggesting it might be for specific, time-bound needs rather than long-term sustainment.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or service level agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract to ensure performance and value?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this contract. Typically, contracts for repair and maintenance services include metrics such as response time for service requests, equipment uptime guarantees, turnaround time for repairs, and quality of workmanship. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), William Compton, would be responsible for monitoring Eaton Corporation's adherence to these performance standards. The effectiveness of the contract in delivering value is directly tied to the rigor and enforceability of these KPIs and SLAs, which are usually detailed in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS).

What is Eaton Corporation's track record with the federal government, particularly with the FAA, for similar services?

Eaton Corporation is a large, diversified industrial manufacturer with a significant presence in government contracting. While the provided data doesn't detail their specific track record with the FAA for electronic equipment repair, their history with federal agencies can be assessed through contract databases like SAM.gov or FPDS. A review of past performance would examine factors such as on-time delivery, quality of work, contract modifications, and any past performance issues or disputes. For a sole-source award, the government likely relied on existing knowledge of Eaton's capabilities or specific qualifications that made them the only viable option, suggesting a potentially positive or at least acceptable past performance history relevant to this requirement.

Given the sole-source nature, what mechanisms are in place to mitigate potential risks related to cost overruns or performance deficiencies?

Mitigating risks in a sole-source contract primarily relies on robust contract administration and oversight. The fixed-price contract type itself helps mitigate cost overrun risk for the government, as the price is set upfront. However, risks related to performance deficiencies remain. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), William Compton, plays a crucial role in monitoring Eaton Corporation's performance against the contract's requirements and Service Level Agreements (SLAs). Mechanisms for mitigation include regular performance reviews, clear communication channels for addressing issues promptly, and contractual remedies for non-performance, which could include termination for default or withholding payments if performance standards are not met. The FAA's procurement team would have also assessed risks during the sole-source justification process.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Other Services (except Public Administration) › Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance › Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Eaton Corporation Public Limited Company

Address: 8609 SIX FORKS RD, RALEIGH, NC, 27615

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $7,173,141

Exercised Options: $7,173,141

Current Obligation: $7,173,141

Actual Outlays: $5,044,439

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 6973GH24D00055

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline