GSA awards $43.2M for R&D structural testing services to Sierra Lobo Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $43,194,569 ($43.2M)

Contractor: Sierra Lobo Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2010-10-01

End Date: 2015-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,886 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: BUILDING 65 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURAL TEST SERVCIES

Place of Performance

Location: DAYTON, GREENE County, OHIO, 45433

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $43.2 million to SIERRA LOBO INC for work described as: BUILDING 65 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURAL TEST SERVCIES Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in specialized research and development. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. Performance period spans nearly five years, indicating a long-term need for these services. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541712 points to a focus on physical and engineering sciences. 5. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 6. The award was made to a single contractor, Sierra Lobo Inc.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $43.2 million over approximately five years for structural test services appears reasonable given the specialized nature of R&D. Benchmarking against similar contracts is challenging without more specific service details, but the duration and scope suggest a substantial undertaking. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, though it may limit flexibility if requirements evolve significantly.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating that multiple potential bidders were solicited and evaluated. The presence of three bidders (implied by 'no': 3) suggests a competitive environment, which typically drives better pricing and service offerings for the government. The specific exclusion of sources clause might warrant further investigation to understand its impact on the breadth of competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally leads to more favorable pricing for taxpayers by encouraging contractors to offer their best terms to win the award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring advanced structural testing for research and development projects, potentially in aerospace, defense, or materials science. The services delivered include specialized structural testing, crucial for validating designs and materials under various conditions. The geographic impact is centered in Ohio, where the contractor is located, but the research outcomes could have national implications. Workforce implications include the employment of highly skilled engineers, technicians, and researchers at Sierra Lobo Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen technical challenges arise in R&D.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical R&D testing services.
Limited transparency into the specific R&D projects being supported.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost predictability.
Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive market.
Long-term contract indicates a sustained need and potential for stable support.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The market for specialized structural testing services is often niche, requiring significant expertise and specialized facilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type of testing and the agencies involved, but R&D services represent a significant portion of federal science and technology investments.

Small Business Impact

The contract indicates that small business participation was not a primary set-aside consideration, as the award was made to Sierra Lobo Inc. without explicit mention of small business goals. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses within the scope of this R&D work.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) through its Federal Acquisition Service. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific project details may be sensitive.

Related Government Programs

NASA Research and Development Contracts
Department of Defense Research and Engineering Services
National Science Foundation Grants
Department of Energy Applied Science Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep in R&D projects.
Contractor's ability to maintain specialized expertise over the contract duration.
Dependence on specific testing equipment and facilities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $43.2 million to SIERRA LOBO INC. BUILDING 65 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURAL TEST SERVCIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SIERRA LOBO INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $43.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-10-01. End: 2015-11-30.

What is the track record of Sierra Lobo Inc. in performing similar structural testing services for the federal government?

Sierra Lobo Inc. has a history of providing engineering and technical services to various government agencies. Their experience often includes aerospace, defense, and research-oriented projects. For structural testing, their capabilities likely encompass a range of analyses and experiments designed to evaluate material and component integrity under stress. A review of past performance evaluations and contract histories would provide a more detailed understanding of their reliability, quality of work, and adherence to schedules and budgets on similar federal contracts. Specific details on their past performance related to NAICS code 541712 would be most relevant.

How does the awarded price compare to market rates for similar structural testing services?

Determining precise market rate comparisons for specialized R&D structural testing is complex due to the unique nature of the services and the specific requirements of each contract. The $43.2 million award over nearly five years, for a firm fixed-price contract, suggests a significant investment. Without access to detailed cost breakdowns or data from other competitive bids for comparable services, a direct price-to-market benchmark is difficult. However, the fact that it was awarded under full and open competition with multiple bidders implies that the pricing was considered competitive by the GSA at the time of award.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks include potential technical challenges inherent in R&D, leading to schedule delays or cost overruns (though mitigated by FFP). There's also a risk of contractor performance issues, such as quality deficiencies or failure to meet technical specifications, which are managed through contract oversight and performance monitoring. Dependence on a single contractor for specialized services presents a risk if the contractor faces financial instability or operational disruptions. Mitigation strategies involve robust contract management, clear performance metrics, and contingency planning by the procuring agency.

How effective has this contract been in supporting federal R&D objectives?

Assessing the effectiveness of this contract requires evaluating the outcomes of the structural testing services provided. If the testing directly contributed to successful R&D projects, validated critical designs, or led to the development of new technologies or materials, then it has been effective. Performance metrics within the contract, such as timely delivery of test results and adherence to technical requirements, would be indicators. The long duration suggests sustained utility, but a definitive judgment on effectiveness would necessitate a review of the specific R&D programs supported and their ultimate success.

What are the historical spending patterns for structural testing services by the General Services Administration?

Historical spending patterns for structural testing services by GSA would reveal trends in contract awards, average contract values, and the types of services procured. Analyzing past contracts under NAICS code 541712 and similar service codes would indicate whether GSA consistently invests in these capabilities or if this award represents a significant increase or shift in spending. Understanding historical competition levels and contractor performance would also provide context. This specific $43.2 million award appears to be a substantial single contract, suggesting a focused investment rather than a broad pattern of numerous small awards.

What is the significance of the 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' clause indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential sources were intentionally excluded from consideration. The reasons for exclusion must be justified and documented, often relating to specific technical capabilities, security requirements, or prior performance issues. This can limit the pool of bidders compared to a pure 'full and open' competition. The impact on price discovery and overall value for taxpayers depends heavily on the rationale for the exclusion and whether it was truly necessary to achieve the government's objectives.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 5TP57100250

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 426 CROGHAN ST, FREMONT, OH, 43420

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $43,646,506

Exercised Options: $43,194,569

Current Obligation: $43,194,569

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 7

Total Subaward Amount: $2,877,566

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline