Interior's $11.4M AFT R&D contract awarded to Concurrent Technologies Corp. faced no competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,423,437 ($11.4M)

Contractor: Concurrent Technologies Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 2006-06-28

End Date: 2007-09-27

Contract Duration: 456 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: AFT R&D

Place of Performance

Location: SAVAGE, HOWARD County, MARYLAND, 20763

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $11.4 million to CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP for work described as: AFT R&D Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize cost overruns. 2. Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and suboptimal service. 3. The contract duration of 456 days is relatively short for R&D. 4. Performance was in Maryland, a state with a significant federal contracting presence. 5. The engineering services sector is competitive, making the sole-source award unusual. 6. No small business set-aside was applied, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this specific contract is challenging due to its unique R&D nature and lack of competitive bidding. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for R&D, can lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly. Without comparable sole-source R&D contracts from the Department of the Interior or similar agencies, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing was optimal. The total award amount of $11.4 million over approximately 1.5 years suggests a significant investment, but the value proposition is obscured by the absence of competition.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, Concurrent Technologies Corp., was solicited. The data does not provide justification for this sole-source award, such as a specific urgent need or unique capability. A lack of competition typically leads to higher prices and reduced innovation as the contractor faces less pressure to be efficient or cost-effective. The absence of multiple bidders means there was no market-driven price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for these services due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without a competitive process, there's no assurance that the government secured the best possible price or the most innovative solution available in the market.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is Concurrent Technologies Corp., which received a significant contract award. The contract aimed to deliver Applied Federal Technology (AFT) Research and Development services. The geographic impact is localized to Maryland, where the contract performance was based. The contract likely supported specialized engineering and R&D roles within the contractor's workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award lacks transparency and competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher costs.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Limited information on performance metrics makes it difficult to assess effectiveness.
No indication of small business subcontracting, potentially missing opportunities for smaller firms.

Positive Signals

Concurrent Technologies Corp. is a known entity in the defense and technology sectors.
The contract was for R&D, a critical area for technological advancement.
The contract was awarded by the Department of the Interior, a major federal agency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a broad category encompassing firms that provide engineering expertise across various industries. The federal government is a major consumer of engineering services, particularly for research and development, infrastructure projects, and defense applications. The market for these services is diverse, ranging from large, established firms to specialized small businesses. Benchmarking this specific $11.4 million R&D contract is difficult without more detailed scope information, but it represents a moderate investment within the broader federal engineering services spend.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it indicate any subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract were likely minimal. The absence of small business involvement in sole-source awards is common, but it represents a missed opportunity to leverage the innovation and agility of the small business sector and to meet federal small business contracting goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been the responsibility of the contracting officer and relevant program managers within the Department of the Interior. The effectiveness of oversight is difficult to assess without performance reports or audit findings. 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

Department of the Interior Research and Development Programs
Applied Federal Technology Initiatives
Engineering Services Contracts
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type increases risk of cost overruns.
Lack of transparency in performance metrics.
No small business subcontracting requirements noted.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $11.4 million to CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP. AFT R&D

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CONCURRENT TECHNOLOGIES CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Interior (Departmental Offices).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-06-28. End: 2007-09-27.

What is the track record of Concurrent Technologies Corp. with the Department of the Interior?

Concurrent Technologies Corporation (CTC) has a history of working with federal agencies, including the Department of the Interior (DOI). While this specific contract was a sole-source award for Applied Federal Technology (AFT) R&D, CTC has broader experience in areas such as engineering services, research and development, and manufacturing. Their overall federal contracting history indicates a capacity to perform complex technical work. However, the nature of this particular award, being sole-source and CPFF, warrants scrutiny regarding its specific performance and value compared to potentially competitive alternatives that might have been available had the DOI pursued a different procurement strategy.

How does the value of this contract compare to similar R&D contracts within the Department of the Interior?

Direct comparison of this $11.4 million contract is difficult without knowing the specific R&D scope and deliverables. However, the Department of the Interior engages in various R&D activities across its bureaus, from environmental science to resource management. Contracts for specialized R&D can vary widely in cost depending on complexity, duration, and required expertise. The fact that this was a sole-source award means its price was not validated by market competition, making a direct 'value for money' comparison with competitively awarded contracts problematic. Generally, sole-source contracts, especially CPFF, carry a higher risk of being less cost-effective than competitively bid ones.

What are the primary risks associated with this sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract?

The primary risks are twofold. First, the sole-source nature means the government did not benefit from competitive bidding, potentially leading to a higher price than if multiple vendors had competed. There's a risk of paying a premium without a clear justification. Second, the Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) structure, while common for R&D where costs can be uncertain, carries an inherent risk of cost escalation. The contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee, which could incentivize less cost-conscious behavior if oversight is not rigorous. This combination requires strong government oversight to ensure cost control and effective delivery of R&D objectives.

What was the intended outcome or effectiveness of this Applied Federal Technology R&D contract?

The intended outcome of this Applied Federal Technology (AFT) R&D contract was to advance specific technological capabilities relevant to the Department of the Interior's mission. AFT R&D typically focuses on developing and adapting existing or emerging technologies for practical government applications. Without specific details on the project's goals, it's hard to define 'effectiveness.' Success would likely be measured by the successful development of prototypes, proof-of-concept demonstrations, or the creation of new methodologies or tools that enhance DOI operations, potentially in areas like environmental monitoring, resource management, or infrastructure maintenance. The lack of public performance data makes assessing actual effectiveness challenging.

How has the Department of the Interior's spending on engineering services and R&D evolved over time?

The Department of the Interior's spending on engineering services and R&D fluctuates based on agency priorities, budget allocations, and specific project needs. Historically, DOI bureaus like the Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey, and National Park Service have consistently invested in engineering and R&D to support their missions. Spending trends can be influenced by infrastructure modernization efforts, environmental research initiatives, and technological advancements. Analyzing historical spending patterns requires examining detailed budget appropriations and contract databases over multiple fiscal years to identify significant shifts or consistent investment levels in these areas.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › OTHER RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 100 CTC DR, JOHNSTOWN, PA, 15904

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,476,181

Exercised Options: $11,476,181

Current Obligation: $11,423,437

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: IND06PC60092

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline