DHS's $23.76M contract for explosive detection systems awarded to Leidos without competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $23,760,000 ($23.8M)
Contractor: Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Start Date: 2005-01-14
End Date: 2005-10-31
Contract Duration: 290 days
Daily Burn Rate: $81.9K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: INTEGRATES 45 EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS AT ATL
Place of Performance
Location: SAINT PETERSBURG, PINELLAS County, FLORIDA, 33702
State: Florida Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Homeland Security obligated $23.8 million to LEIDOS SECURITY DETECTION & AUTOMATION, INC. for work described as: INTEGRATES 45 EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS AT ATL Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. The contract was for integration services, suggesting a need for specialized expertise. 3. The duration of the contract (290 days) indicates a focused, short-term project. 4. Awarded in 2005, the technology and pricing may be outdated. 5. The lack of competition raises questions about value for money. 6. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Given the contract was awarded without competition in 2005, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. Without benchmark data or competing bids, it's difficult to ascertain if the $23.76 million price was competitive. The lack of transparency inherent in sole-source awards makes it hard to determine if taxpayers received the best possible price for the integration of 45 explosive detection systems. Future procurements should aim for competitive bidding to ensure cost-effectiveness.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. The government directly negotiated with Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required goods or services, or in cases of urgent need. However, the absence of competition means there was no opportunity for other qualified companies to bid, potentially leading to higher prices than if multiple bids were considered.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to leverage competition to drive down costs, meaning taxpayers may have paid a premium for these explosive detection systems.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, enhancing security capabilities. The contract facilitated the integration of 45 explosive detection systems, improving threat detection at transportation hubs. The geographic impact is focused on Florida, where the systems were integrated. The contract likely involved specialized technical personnel for system integration, impacting the workforce in engineering and technical services.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits competition and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
- Awarded in 2005, the pricing and technology may not reflect current market conditions.
- Lack of transparency in pricing due to non-competitive nature.
Positive Signals
- Addresses critical national security needs for explosive detection.
- Awarded to a specific vendor for specialized integration services.
- Contract was for a defined scope of integrating 45 systems.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically related to security and detection technology. The market for such systems is driven by government security requirements and technological advancements in threat detection. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other government contracts for the procurement and integration of similar security screening equipment, considering factors like the number of units, system complexity, and the competitive landscape at the time of award.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have involved small business set-asides, as it was awarded sole-source to Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. There is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses within the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this specific award, given its nature and the prime contractor's size.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of Homeland Security, specifically the Transportation Security Administration. As a sole-source award, the primary oversight would focus on contract performance, adherence to the statement of work, and timely delivery of integrated systems. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature, and specific Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on the DHS IG's mandate for TSA procurements.
Related Government Programs
- Explosive Detection Systems Procurement
- Transportation Security Administration Contracts
- Homeland Security Technology Integration
- Sole-Source Security Equipment Awards
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Lack of competition
- Potential for overpricing
- Dated contract award (2005)
Tags
dhs, transportation-security-administration, engineering-services, sole-source, explosive-detection-systems, security-technology, florida, firm-fixed-price, large-contract, homeland-security, 2005-award
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Homeland Security awarded $23.8 million to LEIDOS SECURITY DETECTION & AUTOMATION, INC.. INTEGRATES 45 EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS AT ATL
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is LEIDOS SECURITY DETECTION & AUTOMATION, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $23.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2005-01-14. End: 2005-10-31.
What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?
The provided data does not explicitly state the justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. Without further documentation, the precise reason for not competing this $23.76 million contract for explosive detection systems remains unclear. This lack of competition limits transparency and the ability to verify if the government obtained the best value.
How does the $23.76 million cost compare to similar explosive detection system integration contracts awarded around 2005?
Comparing the $23.76 million cost for integrating 45 explosive detection systems is difficult without access to a comprehensive database of similar contracts from 2005. Sole-source awards inherently lack direct price comparison points. However, the average cost per system integrated would be approximately $528,000 ($23.76M / 45 systems). To assess value, one would need to benchmark this against other government or commercial contracts for integrating comparable detection technologies, considering factors like system complexity, vendor overhead, and installation requirements. The age of the award also suggests that current market prices for similar integration services would likely be different.
What are the potential risks associated with awarding a large technology integration contract without competition?
The primary risk of awarding a large technology integration contract without competition is the potential for inflated pricing. When a contract is not competed, the government loses the benefit of competitive bidding, which typically drives down costs and encourages innovation. Other risks include reduced transparency in the procurement process, potential for vendor lock-in, and the possibility that the chosen vendor may not offer the most cost-effective or technologically advanced solution available. Furthermore, a sole-source award can create a perception of favoritism or inefficiency, potentially undermining public trust in government spending.
What was the track record of Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. with DHS prior to or around 2005 for similar systems?
The provided data does not include information on Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc.'s prior track record with DHS or their experience with similar systems around 2005. To assess this, one would need to consult historical contract databases and performance reviews. A strong track record with relevant experience would lend some confidence to the sole-source award, suggesting the agency may have had a basis for selecting this specific vendor. However, without this information, the award's rationale remains less substantiated from a contractor capability perspective.
How has spending on explosive detection systems by the TSA evolved since this 2005 contract?
The provided data focuses solely on a single contract from 2005 and does not offer insights into TSA's subsequent spending patterns on explosive detection systems. To analyze the evolution of spending, one would need to examine TSA's budget allocations, contract awards, and technology procurements over the years. Factors such as technological advancements, changing threat landscapes, and shifts in procurement strategies (e.g., increased competition or consolidation of vendors) would influence spending trends. A comprehensive analysis would require reviewing multiple years of TSA contracting data.
What is the expected lifespan and maintenance cost of the 45 integrated explosive detection systems?
The provided data for this 2005 contract does not include information regarding the expected lifespan or ongoing maintenance costs of the 45 integrated explosive detection systems. This information would typically be detailed in separate service and support contracts or within the original contract's specifications if long-term maintenance was included. Understanding the total cost of ownership, including maintenance and upgrades over the systems' operational life, is crucial for a complete assessment of the contract's value, which cannot be determined from the data provided.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services
Product/Service Code: QUALITY CONTROL, TEST, INSPECTION › OTHER QUALITY, TEST, INSPECT SVCS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE, SAINT PETERSBURG, FL, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $352,000,000
Exercised Options: $113,576,116
Current Obligation: $23,760,000
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: DTSA2003D00928
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2005-01-14
Current End Date: 2005-10-31
Potential End Date: 2005-10-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2013-07-11
More Contracts from Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc.
- L-3 Communications Hsts04-04-D-Dep009 ILS Preventing and Corrective Maintenance Services for Fielded L3 EDS and TRX Units on Clin Items 401AA, 4011AB, 4011BA and 401BB — $156.2M (Department of Homeland Security)
- This IS a Hybrid Letter Contract. the Pricing Will BE Fixed Price or Time and Materials- Which Will BE Determined Upon Definitization — $78.0M (Department of Homeland Security)
- Passenger Screening Program Advanced Imaging Technology Project Procure 500 Advanced Imaging Technology (AIT) Systems With the Automatic Target Recognition Upgrade — $74.8M (Department of Homeland Security)
- "igf::ct::igf" the Purpose of This Task Order Hsts04-14-J-Ct3025 IS to Acquire Preventative and Corrective Maintenance Services for Examiner 6000/6600 Explosive Detection Systems (EDS), Preventative and Corrective Maintenance Services for Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) Units, Bi-Weekly External Cleaning for Examiners and Program Management Support, Under the Above Mentioned Idiq Contract for Option Period 3 — $73.5M (Department of Homeland Security)
- "igf::cl,Ct::igf" Task Order 6 IS to Acquire Preventive and Corrective Maintenance Services for Examiner 6000/6600 Explosive Detection Systems (EDS), Preventative and Corrective Maintenance Services for Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) Units, and Program Management Support Under the L-3 Integrated Logistics Support (ILS) Maintenance Contract Hsts04-11-D-Ct3083 for Option Period 2. This Task Order Contains Firm Fixed Price Clins 2001A, 2002A, 2002AB and 2002D — $66.7M (Department of Homeland Security)
View all Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. federal contracts →
Other Department of Homeland Security Contracts
- THE United States Coast Guard HAS a Requirement to Procure UP to Twenty-Six (26) Fast Response Cutters (frcs) on a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Basis With an Economic Price Adjustment (EPA). Phase II of the FRC Program Will Complete the Fleet for a Total of 58 Cutters — $2.1B (Bollinger Shipyards Lockport, L.L.C.)
- Design and Construct NEW Vertical Barrier and Power Distribution, Lighting, Cameras, Equipment Shelters and Linear Ground Detection System (lgds) in Hildago County, NM — $1.8B (Fisher Sand & Gravel CO)
- Production&delivery of National Security Cutter (NSC) 6 — $1.7B (Huntington Ingalls Incorporated)
- YUM-2 Vertical Border and Waterborne Barrier Construction — $1.7B (Fisher Sand & Gravel CO)
- Construct Vertical Border Barrier — $1.6B (Fisher Sand & Gravel CO)