Draper Lab Awarded $275M for Tactical Engineering Support, Lacking Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $275,280,879 ($275.3M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-12-05

End Date: 2011-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,029 days

Daily Burn Rate: $267.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: GUIDANCE SYSTEM TACTICAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: CAMBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $275.3 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: GUIDANCE SYSTEM TACTICAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT Key points: 1. Significant contract value of $275M awarded to a single entity. 2. Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and value. 3. Engineering services sector is critical for defense, but this award lacks transparency. 4. Long contract duration of 1029 days warrants close monitoring.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's cost-plus incentive fee structure, combined with a lack of competition, makes it difficult to assess value. Without benchmarks from competing bids, it's hard to determine if the $275M price is reasonable for the engineering services provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This significantly limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers as there was no market pressure to drive down the price.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition likely resulted in a higher cost to taxpayers than if the contract had been competitively bid.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for critical defense engineering services due to lack of competition. The long-term nature of the contract means potential cost overruns could impact defense budgets significantly. Lack of transparency in sole-source awards can erode public trust in government contracting.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus contract type
Long contract duration
High contract value

Positive Signals

Essential defense service
Experienced contractor

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, which is vital for the Department of Defense's technological advancements. Spending in this area is substantial, and competitive bidding is crucial to ensure efficient use of funds.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that small businesses were involved in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Sole-source awards often bypass opportunities for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The lack of competition and cost-plus nature of this contract necessitate robust oversight to ensure the contractor is performing efficiently and costs are reasonable. The Defense Contract Management Agency is responsible for oversight.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Cost-plus contract type
High contract value
Long contract duration
Potential for cost overruns
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $275.3 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. GUIDANCE SYSTEM TACTICAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT

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 (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $275.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-12-05. End: 2011-09-30.

What specific justification was provided for not competing this critical engineering support contract?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, justifications for non-competitive contracts cite reasons such as urgency, unique capabilities, or national security requirements. Without this information, it's impossible to assess the validity of the sole-source decision.

How will the cost-plus incentive fee structure be monitored to ensure cost efficiency given the lack of competition?

Monitoring a cost-plus incentive fee contract without competition requires rigorous auditing and performance evaluation by the contracting agency. The agency must establish clear performance metrics and cost targets, and closely scrutinize all incurred costs to ensure they are reasonable and allocable to the contract objectives.

What is the potential impact on future defense system development if key engineering support is consistently awarded without competition?

Consistently awarding key engineering support without competition could stifle innovation by reducing market pressure on contractors to improve efficiency and develop new technologies. It may also lead to higher long-term costs for the DoD, potentially diverting funds from other critical areas and limiting the diversity of technical solutions available.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N0003009Q0008

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE, MA, 02139

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $861,670,174

Exercised Options: $830,538,149

Current Obligation: $275,280,879

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline