DHS awarded $32.17M for maintenance of EDS Examiner 6000, Linescan 110, and Linescan 208 systems

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,168,476 ($32.2M)

Contractor: Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2007-03-16

End Date: 2007-09-30

Contract Duration: 198 days

Daily Burn Rate: $162.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: L-3- MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR EDS EXAMINER 6000, LINESCAN 110, AND LINESCAN 208. PERIOD OF PERIOD 03/11/2007-03/31/2007 AND 04/01/2007-09/30/2007

Place of Performance

Location: SAINT PETERSBURG, PINELLAS County, FLORIDA, 33702

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $32.2 million to LEIDOS SECURITY DETECTION & AUTOMATION, INC. for work described as: L-3- MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR EDS EXAMINER 6000, LINESCAN 110, AND LINESCAN 208. PERIOD OF PERIOD 03/11/2007-03/31/2007 AND 04/01/2007-09/30/2007 Key points: 1. Contract awarded for maintenance of specific security screening equipment. 2. Limited competition due to specialized nature of the equipment. 3. Contract duration was approximately six months. 4. Firm Fixed Price contract type suggests defined scope and cost. 5. Awarded to a single vendor, raising questions about price competitiveness. 6. Geographic location of performance was Florida. 7. No small business set-aside was applied.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $32.17 million for a six-month period for maintenance services appears high, especially considering it was not competed. Without comparable contract data for similar maintenance services on these specific systems, it's difficult to definitively benchmark value. The lack of competition suggests potential for inflated pricing. The base year value of $16.25 million for the initial period (March 2007 - September 2007) also warrants scrutiny.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary expertise, proprietary technology, or parts to perform the required services. The lack of competition means that the government did not explore alternative vendors or pricing, potentially leading to a higher cost than if it had been competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding, as the contractor faced no pressure to offer the lowest possible price.

Public Impact

Benefits the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) by ensuring the operational readiness of critical security screening equipment. Services delivered include maintenance for EDS Examiner 6000, Linescan 110, and Linescan 208 systems. Geographic impact is primarily in Florida, where the maintenance was performed. Workforce implications are minimal for this specific contract, as it focuses on equipment maintenance rather than new installations or large-scale operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have resulted in higher costs for taxpayers.
Sole-source award limits transparency and potential for cost savings.
High contract value for a short maintenance period raises questions about efficiency.

Positive Signals

Ensures operational continuity of essential security screening equipment.
Awarded to a known entity, potentially leveraging existing expertise.
Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty for the government.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically related to the maintenance and support of specialized security detection and automation equipment. The market for such services is often niche, with a limited number of qualified providers due to the proprietary nature of the technology. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more information on the specific systems and their maintenance requirements.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have significant subcontracting implications for small businesses based on the sole-source nature and specialized service. The award to a large entity suggests that small businesses were not considered or did not possess the capability for this specific maintenance requirement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. As a sole-source award, transparency might be limited. Accountability measures would typically involve performance metrics and adherence to the firm fixed-price agreement. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Homeland Security Equipment Maintenance
Transportation Security Administration Contracts
Airport Security Technology Maintenance
Sole-Source Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
High Contract Value for Short Duration
Sole-Source Award Justification

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $32.2 million to LEIDOS SECURITY DETECTION & AUTOMATION, INC.. L-3- MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR EDS EXAMINER 6000, LINESCAN 110, AND LINESCAN 208. PERIOD OF PERIOD 03/11/2007-03/31/2007 AND 04/01/2007-09/30/2007

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 $32.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-03-16. End: 2007-09-30.

What is the track record of Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. in providing maintenance for similar security screening equipment?

Leidos Security Detection & Automation, Inc. (formerly part of L3 Technologies) has a significant history in providing security detection and automation solutions, including maintenance services for various screening technologies. Their expertise often stems from the development and manufacturing of these systems, making them a logical, albeit sole-source, provider for maintenance. Historical data would need to be reviewed to assess their performance on similar contracts, including on-time delivery, quality of service, and responsiveness to issues. Given the specialized nature of the EDS Examiner 6000, Linescan 110, and Linescan 208, their established presence in this niche is a key factor in sole-source awards.

How does the per-unit maintenance cost for these systems compare to industry benchmarks?

Determining a precise per-unit maintenance cost benchmark is challenging without detailed breakdowns of the contract and specific industry data for these particular models. The total contract value of $32.17 million over approximately six months for maintenance of multiple systems suggests a substantial cost. However, specialized security equipment often incurs higher maintenance costs due to the complexity, proprietary parts, and the critical nature of its function, which demands high uptime. A lack of competition further complicates benchmarking, as the government did not have the benefit of market price discovery. A detailed cost analysis by the agency would be necessary to assess if the pricing was reasonable compared to internal estimates or historical data for similar, though not identical, systems.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source maintenance contract for critical security equipment?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source maintenance contract for critical security equipment include potential overpricing due to the absence of competition, reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or improve service efficiency, and a lack of flexibility if the contractor's performance is unsatisfactory or if their business circumstances change. Taxpayers bear the risk of paying a premium. Furthermore, reliance on a single vendor can create vulnerabilities if that vendor experiences financial difficulties, is acquired, or discontinues support for the equipment. The government also loses the opportunity to explore potentially more cost-effective or technologically advanced solutions from other providers.

How effective is the Transportation Security Administration in managing maintenance contracts for its screening technology?

The effectiveness of the TSA in managing maintenance contracts can vary. For sole-source contracts like this one, the challenge lies in ensuring fair pricing and adequate performance without competitive pressure. The TSA relies on contract officers and technical experts to negotiate terms and monitor performance. Success is often measured by equipment uptime, response times to maintenance requests, and overall operational continuity. While this contract ensured the maintenance of critical systems, the lack of competition raises questions about the long-term cost-effectiveness and the TSA's ability to secure the best possible value. Independent audits and performance reviews would provide a clearer picture of their management effectiveness.

What has been the historical spending pattern for maintenance of EDS Examiner 6000, Linescan 110, and Linescan 208 systems by DHS?

Historical spending data for the maintenance of these specific systems prior to this $32.17 million award would be crucial for context. Without access to that data, it's difficult to establish a pattern. However, the fact that this contract was awarded sole-source suggests that previous maintenance may also have been performed by the same or a closely related entity, potentially under similar circumstances. If previous contracts were also sole-source and at comparable annual rates, it might indicate a consistent, albeit potentially expensive, approach to maintaining this specialized equipment. A trend of increasing costs over time, or significant fluctuations, would warrant further investigation into the reasons behind them.

What is the justification provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis typically revolves around the unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or specialized knowledge required to maintain the specific security screening equipment (EDS Examiner 6000, Linescan 110, and Linescan 208). Manufacturers or their authorized service providers are often the only entities with access to the necessary technical documentation, replacement parts, and trained personnel. For critical infrastructure like security screening systems, ensuring operational continuity and avoiding potential risks associated with less experienced vendors often leads agencies to opt for sole-source procurement, especially when the equipment is specialized or aging.

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

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

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: $32,168,476

Exercised Options: $32,168,476

Current Obligation: $32,168,476

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSTS0405DDEP009

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline