DOE's $167M R&D contract with General Atomics, awarded in 1999, highlights long-term research investments
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $166,797,631 ($166.8M)
Contractor: General Atomics
Awarding Agency: Department of Energy
Start Date: 1999-10-15
End Date: 2004-06-08
Contract Duration: 1,698 days
Daily Burn Rate: $98.2K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: R&D
Place of Performance
Location: LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 90001
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Energy obligated $166.8 million to GENERAL ATOMICS for work described as: Key points: 1. This contract represents a significant, long-term investment in research and development, indicating a sustained need for specialized scientific services. 2. The 'NOT COMPETED' award suggests potential sole-source justifications or a lack of readily available alternatives at the time of award. 3. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while common for R&D, carries inherent risks of cost overruns if not closely managed. 4. The contract's duration of nearly five years (1698 days) points to a complex, multi-phase research project. 5. The award to General Atomics, a known defense and energy contractor, positions this spending within a sector with established players. 6. The absence of small business involvement suggests the scope or nature of the R&D required specialized, large-contractor capabilities.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Assessing the value-for-money of this 1999 Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract is challenging without detailed performance metrics and cost breakdowns. CPFF contracts can sometimes lead to higher costs than fixed-price agreements if not rigorously managed. Benchmarking against similar R&D contracts from that era would be necessary to determine if the pricing was competitive. The long duration and significant dollar amount suggest a substantial research undertaking, but the lack of competition raises questions about whether the government secured the best possible price.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, indicated by 'NOT COMPETED'. This means the Department of Energy did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. Such awards are typically justified when only one source possesses the necessary unique capabilities, technology, or when urgency precludes a competitive process. The lack of competition limits price discovery and may result in higher costs compared to a fully competed contract.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure to drive down costs. Without competition, there's less assurance that the government received the most economical solution available.
Public Impact
This contract directly benefits the Department of Energy's research objectives in physical, engineering, and life sciences. It supports advancements in scientific knowledge and technological development within the United States. The contract likely involved highly skilled scientists, engineers, and technicians, contributing to the specialized workforce in R&D. The geographic impact is primarily associated with the contractor's facilities in California, where the work was performed.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure can incentivize cost escalation if not tightly monitored.
- Long contract duration increases exposure to potential scope creep or changing research priorities.
- Lack of small business participation may indicate missed opportunities for innovation and economic inclusion.
Positive Signals
- Long-term investment in critical R&D areas signals commitment to scientific advancement.
- Award to a reputable contractor like General Atomics suggests a focus on capability and expertise.
- The contract duration implies a significant and potentially impactful research project.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences (NAICS code 541710). This sector is characterized by innovation, long project timelines, and often requires specialized expertise. The Department of Energy is a major funder of R&D, supporting advancements critical to national security, energy independence, and economic competitiveness. Comparable spending in this area can vary widely depending on the specific scientific field and the scale of the research initiative.
Small Business Impact
This contract did not include a small business set-aside (ss=false, sb=false). The nature of advanced R&D, particularly for a contract of this magnitude and duration, often requires the specialized capabilities and resources typically found in larger, established firms. This suggests that the specific research requirements may have been beyond the scope or capacity of most small businesses. There is no indication of subcontracting plans, which could have provided opportunities for small businesses to participate.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of Energy's contracting officers and program managers. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight and performance monitoring would be crucial to ensure funds were used effectively and for their intended research purposes. Transparency would be limited by the sole-source nature and the proprietary aspects of R&D. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Energy Research and Development Programs
- Advanced Scientific Research Contracts
- Physical Sciences Research
- Engineering Research
- Life Sciences Research
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award may indicate limited market research or lack of competition.
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
- Long contract duration increases potential for scope creep and cost escalation.
- Lack of transparency regarding specific R&D objectives.
Tags
research-and-development, department-of-energy, general-atomics, cost-plus-fixed-fee, sole-source, california, large-contract, science-and-technology, federal-spending, historical-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Energy awarded $166.8 million to GENERAL ATOMICS. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GENERAL ATOMICS.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $166.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-10-15. End: 2004-06-08.
What was the specific research objective of this contract awarded to General Atomics?
The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences' under NAICS code 541710. However, the specific research objective is not detailed. Contracts in this category can encompass a vast array of scientific endeavors, from fundamental physics research and materials science to advanced engineering designs or biological studies. Without access to the contract's statement of work or related documentation, the precise research goals remain unknown. General Atomics is known for its work in areas like nuclear energy, fusion research, and advanced defense technologies, suggesting the R&D could have been related to these fields.
How does the $166.8 million cost compare to similar R&D contracts from the late 1990s?
Comparing the $166.8 million cost requires context regarding the specific R&D field and the contract's duration (nearly 5 years). In the late 1990s, large-scale R&D projects, particularly those involving complex engineering or scientific challenges, could indeed reach such figures. For instance, major federal investments in areas like fusion energy research, advanced materials, or complex simulation modeling often involved multi-year, multi-million dollar contracts. However, without knowing the exact nature of the research and comparing it to contemporaneous contracts for similar scope and complexity, it's difficult to definitively state if this was high, low, or average. The sole-source nature also complicates direct cost comparisons.
What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude and duration?
The primary risks with a CPFF contract of this scale ($166.8M over ~5 years) revolve around cost control and contractor incentive. While the 'fixed fee' provides a ceiling on the contractor's profit, the 'cost plus' element means the government reimburses allowable costs. This can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs, as their fee remains constant regardless of the final cost. For the government, the risk is that the total cost could significantly exceed initial estimates if not managed diligently. Scope creep is another major risk; as research progresses, new avenues may emerge, leading to expanded work not initially envisioned, potentially driving up costs. Effective oversight, clear milestones, and robust change control processes are critical to mitigate these risks.
What does the 'NOT COMPETED' status imply about the contractor selection process and potential alternatives?
The 'NOT COMPETED' status signifies that the Department of Energy did not conduct a full and open competition for this contract. This typically implies that the agency determined, based on specific criteria, that only one responsible source was capable of providing the required R&D services. Reasons could include unique proprietary technology, specialized expertise held by General Atomics, critical urgency, or a lack of other qualified bidders at the time. This lack of competition means the government did not benefit from the price reductions and innovation that typically arise from a competitive bidding process. It raises questions about whether alternative solutions or contractors were thoroughly explored.
What is the historical spending pattern for R&D contracts with General Atomics by the Department of Energy?
The provided data only shows this single contract ($166.8M from 1999-2004) with General Atomics awarded by the Department of Energy. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need to analyze a broader dataset encompassing all contracts awarded to General Atomics by the DOE over an extended period. This would reveal trends in contract types (e.g., CPFF, fixed-price), competition levels, dollar values, and the specific R&D areas funded. Without this broader context, it's impossible to establish a historical spending pattern based solely on this one data point. This contract represents a significant, but isolated, investment.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Energy R&D Services
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Contractor Details
Address: 3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT, SAN DIEGO, CA, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-10-15
Current End Date: 2004-06-08
Potential End Date: 2004-06-08 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2009-10-15
More Contracts from General Atomics
- CVN 79 Emals Long Lead Time Material — $1.7B (Department of Defense)
- 200310!000495!1700!A8050 !naval AIR Warfare Center, Aircra!n6833503c0205 !A!N! !N! !20030728!20041028!067638957!067638957!859181984!n!general Atomics !3550 General Atomics Court!san Diego !ca!92121!66000!073!06!san Diego !SAN Diego !california!+000004883000!n!n!000107026822!1710!aircraft Landing Equipment !c9e!all Other Supplies and Equipme!2000!not Discernable or Classified !336413!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!y!u!2!002!b! !A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $928.2M (Department of Defense)
- CVN 78 Production Emals — $710.8M (Department of Defense)
- 200411!001061!1700!A8050 !naval AIR Warfare Center, Aircra!n6833504c0167 !A!N! !N! ! !20040402!20090403!067638957!067638957!859181984!n!general Atomics !3550 General Atomics Court!san Diego !ca!92121!37800!029!34!lakehurst AIR Engine!ocean !NEW Jersey!+000016000000!n!n!000145621824!1710!aircraft Landing Equipment !a1c!other Aircraft Equipment !223 !cvn(x) !541710!A!A!3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1g!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !z!b!a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $590.2M (Department of Defense)
- CVN 81 Emals Pre-Production Planning — $511.0M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Energy Contracts
- Federal Contract — $48.1B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- ,Ct::igf Contract Award De-Na0003525 to the National Technology&engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (ntess) for the Management and Operation of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) — $41.7B (National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC)
- Management and Operation of the OAK Ridge National Laboratory — $40.8B (Ut-Battelle LLC)
- TAS::89 0240::TAS This Performance-Based Management Contract (pbmc) IS for the Management and Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (llnl). the Contractor Shall, in Accordance With the Provisions of This Contract, Accomplish the Missions and Programs Assigned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Manage and Operate the Laboratory. the Laboratory IS ONE of Does Office of Defense Program Multi-Program Laboratories. the Laboratory IS a Federally Funded Research and Development Institution (established in Accordance With the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 35 and Operated Under This Management and Operating (M&O) Contract, AS Defined in FAR 17.6 and Dear 917.6 — $40.8B (Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC)
- M&O of Lanl BR of U of CA — $35.3B (Regents of the University of California, the)