DoD awards $44.8M for irradiation apparatus manufacturing, extending existing contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $44,834,017 ($44.8M)

Contractor: American Science & Engineering Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-09-08

End Date: 2011-09-27

Contract Duration: 384 days

Daily Burn Rate: $116.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: AWARDING THE 3RD AND LAST ORDERING PERIOD UNDER THE BASE CONTRACT.

Place of Performance

Location: BILLERICA, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01821

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $44.8 million to AMERICAN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INC for work described as: AWARDING THE 3RD AND LAST ORDERING PERIOD UNDER THE BASE CONTRACT. Key points: 1. Contract represents the final ordering period under a base contract. 2. Awardee has a significant history with this type of equipment. 3. Contract type is Firm Fixed Price, indicating defined costs. 4. The contract was not competed, raising questions about price discovery. 5. Duration of the ordering period is approximately 32 years. 6. Small business participation is not explicitly detailed.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $44.8 million for irradiation apparatus manufacturing is difficult to benchmark without more specific details on the equipment and its intended use. As this is the final ordering period under an existing base contract, it suggests a continuation of services rather than a new procurement. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government. However, the lack of competition makes a direct value-for-money assessment challenging, as there's no market comparison to evaluate pricing efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This typically occurs when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or when the requirement is a follow-on to a previous contract where competition was already established. The lack of competition means the government did not solicit bids from multiple vendors, potentially limiting opportunities for price negotiation and innovation from the broader market.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher prices for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down costs. It also limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or technologies that other vendors might offer.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense is the primary beneficiary, receiving specialized irradiation apparatus. This equipment likely supports defense-related research, development, or operational needs. The geographic impact is primarily tied to the contractor's location and the DoD's operational footprint. Workforce implications are concentrated within the awarded contractor, American Science & Engineering Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition limits potential cost savings for taxpayers.
Extended contract duration without re-competition raises concerns about sustained value.
Specific technical requirements and performance metrics are not detailed, hindering full assessment.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty.
Awardee is an established entity with experience in the relevant manufacturing sector.
This award represents the final ordering period, suggesting a mature and potentially stable program.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing sector, a niche within the broader manufacturing industry. This sector is critical for various applications, including medical sterilization, food preservation, and scientific research, as well as defense-related uses. The market size for specialized irradiation equipment can vary significantly based on technological advancements and demand from government and commercial entities. Benchmarking this specific contract is challenging without knowing the precise specifications of the apparatus, but it represents a significant investment in specialized manufacturing capabilities for defense.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary consideration, as the awardee is a large business and the contract was not set aside for small businesses. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary focus was on the prime contractor's capabilities, and the impact on the small business ecosystem in this specific procurement is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability regarding cost. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award and the lack of publicly available detailed performance data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Manufacturing Contracts
Specialized Equipment Procurement
Irradiation Technology
DoD Supply Chain

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Price Inflation
Limited Transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $44.8 million to AMERICAN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INC. AWARDING THE 3RD AND LAST ORDERING PERIOD UNDER THE BASE CONTRACT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $44.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-09-08. End: 2011-09-27.

What is the specific type and purpose of the irradiation apparatus being manufactured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing' under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334517. While the specific type and purpose are not detailed, irradiation apparatus are used in various applications, including sterilization of medical equipment and food products, industrial processing, and scientific research. Given the awarding agency is the Department of Defense, the apparatus likely serves a defense-related function, potentially for material testing, research and development, or specialized operational support. Further details on the specific technical requirements and end-use would be necessary for a complete understanding.

How does the $44.8 million award compare to historical spending on similar irradiation apparatus by the DoD?

Comparing the $44.8 million award to historical spending requires access to a broader dataset of DoD contracts for irradiation apparatus. Without this comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this amount is high, low, or average. However, as this is the third and final ordering period under a base contract, it suggests a continuation of a program that has likely seen previous funding. The duration of the ordering period (384 months, or 32 years) implies that the $44.8 million is spread over a significant timeframe, making the annual expenditure potentially more modest than the total award suggests. A full analysis would involve examining spending trends for similar equipment over multiple years and across different defense agencies.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and quality assurance measures for this contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or quality assurance measures for this contract. However, as it is a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract awarded by the Department of Defense, it is expected that the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) would oversee performance. Typical QA measures for manufacturing contracts include adherence to technical specifications, material quality, production timelines, and successful testing of the final product. KPIs would likely focus on delivery schedules, defect rates, and compliance with contractual requirements. The absence of explicit KPIs in the summary data limits a detailed assessment of performance risk and quality assurance effectiveness.

What is the track record of American Science & Engineering Inc. in delivering similar irradiation apparatus to the government?

American Science & Engineering Inc. (AS&E) has a history of providing advanced technology solutions, including X-ray inspection systems, which are related to irradiation technologies. While the specific 'irradiation apparatus' may differ from their more commonly known cargo and baggage inspection systems, their experience in developing and manufacturing complex detection and imaging equipment suggests a relevant technical capability. To fully assess their track record for this specific contract, one would need to review their past performance on similar DoD contracts, including on-time delivery, adherence to specifications, and any past performance issues or commendations. The fact that this is the final ordering period under a base contract implies a degree of successful past performance.

Given the sole-source nature, what steps were taken to ensure fair and reasonable pricing?

When a contract is awarded on a sole-source basis, the government is still obligated to ensure fair and reasonable pricing. This typically involves price analysis techniques. For a Firm Fixed Price contract like this, the government might have reviewed the contractor's cost and pricing data, compared the proposed price to historical prices for similar items (if available), or used independent government cost estimates. In some cases, negotiation might still occur to achieve a fair price. However, without direct competition, the government's leverage in price negotiation is reduced. The specific price negotiation strategies and justifications for deeming the price fair and reasonable are not detailed in the provided summary.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Irradiation Apparatus Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

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

Address: 829 MIDDLESEX TPKE, BILLERICA, MA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Federally Funded Research and Development Corp, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $47,133,639

Exercised Options: $47,133,639

Current Obligation: $44,834,017

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W52H0908D0393

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline