DoD's $171M R&D Contract with Draper Lab: A 5-Year Look at Cost-Plus Incentives

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $171,363,676 ($171.4M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-01-23

End Date: 2010-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,076 days

Daily Burn Rate: $82.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE

Sector: R&D

Place of Performance

Location: CAMBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $171.4 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract awarded to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for R&D in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences totaled $171.36 million. 2. Awarded by the Department of the Navy, this contract utilized a Cost Plus Incentive fee structure. 3. The contract duration was 2076 days, spanning from January 23, 2005, to September 30, 2010. 4. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential price discovery and value. 5. The specific Product Service Code (PSC) is not provided, limiting detailed sector analysis.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The Cost Plus Incentive fee structure aims to control costs by incentivizing the contractor to stay within budget. However, without a competitive bidding process, it's difficult to benchmark the pricing against similar contracts or determine if the government received the best possible value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This limits price discovery as there was no market competition to drive down costs or ensure the most cost-effective solution was chosen. The government relied on negotiation rather than competitive pressure.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition may have resulted in higher costs for taxpayers compared to a competitively awarded contract, as the contractor faced less pressure to optimize pricing.

Public Impact

Research and Development: Significant investment in advanced scientific and engineering research. National Security: Likely contributes to defense capabilities and technological superiority for the Navy. Long-term Investment: The extended duration suggests a focus on complex, multi-year research projects. Sole-Source Award: Raises concerns about transparency and potential for inflated costs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under the Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (NAICS 541710) sector. Spending in this sector is crucial for innovation but can be prone to cost overruns due to the inherent uncertainties in research.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors. As a sole-source award to a large entity, opportunities for small business participation may have been limited unless specifically mandated.

Oversight & Accountability

The Cost Plus Incentive fee structure requires robust oversight to ensure contractor performance and cost control. Without details on specific oversight mechanisms, it's difficult to assess their effectiveness in managing this significant R&D investment.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

research-and-development-in-the-physical, department-of-defense, ma, dca, 100m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $171.4 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $171.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-01-23. End: 2010-09-30.

What specific technological advancements or outcomes resulted from this $171 million R&D investment, and how do they compare to the initial objectives?

The primary objective of this contract was research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences. Without specific project details, it's impossible to quantify the exact technological advancements. However, the significant investment suggests a focus on complex, potentially groundbreaking work. Evaluating the return on investment would require comparing the achieved outcomes against the initial research goals and assessing their impact on the Department of the Navy's capabilities.

Given the sole-source nature of this contract, what measures were in place to ensure the government negotiated the best possible price and terms?

Sole-source contracts typically rely on negotiation rather than competitive bidding. To ensure fair pricing, the Department of the Navy would likely have conducted thorough cost and technical analyses, potentially involving independent cost estimators and subject matter experts. They would also have leveraged historical pricing data and market research where available. However, the absence of competition inherently limits the government's leverage in price negotiations.

How effectively did the Cost Plus Incentive fee structure manage project costs and incentivize performance over the 5-year duration of this contract?

The Cost Plus Incentive (CPI) fee structure aims to align contractor and government interests by providing incentives for cost savings and performance targets. Its effectiveness hinges on well-defined performance metrics and realistic cost targets. Over a 5-year period, effective management would involve continuous monitoring of expenditures against baseline estimates and objective assessment of progress towards R&D goals. Without access to the contractor's performance reports and final cost data, a definitive assessment of the CPI's effectiveness is not possible.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesScientific Research and Development ServicesResearch and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: GUIDED MISSLES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 555 TECHNOLOGY SQ, CAMBRIDGE, MA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-01-23

Current End Date: 2010-09-30

Potential End Date: 2010-09-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2014-08-25

More Contracts from THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

View all THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending