DoD's $302M contract for missile parts awarded to Draper Laboratory without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $302,443,626 ($302.4M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-02-02

End Date: 2019-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,518 days

Daily Burn Rate: $199.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF MOD1 GS OTHER SPALT MATERIAL

Place of Performance

Location: PITTSFIELD, BERKSHIRE County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01201

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $302.4 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF MOD1 GS OTHER SPALT MATERIAL Key points: 1. The contract value of $302 million represents a significant investment in specialized defense manufacturing. 2. Sole-source awards can limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers. 3. The duration of the contract (over 4 years) suggests a long-term need for these specific parts. 4. The award to a single, established contractor may indicate a lack of readily available alternatives or a highly specialized requirement. 5. Performance context is limited without specific delivery metrics or quality assurance reports. 6. The contract falls under the 'Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts' manufacturing NAICS code, highlighting its niche focus.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its specialized nature and sole-source award. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if the $302 million represents a fair market price. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts some risk to the contractor, but the lack of competition prevents a direct comparison to similar contracts or market rates for equivalent services.

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 among multiple potential vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities, technology, or security clearances to fulfill the requirement. The lack of competition means that taxpayers did not benefit from the price reductions that can arise from a bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to leverage competition to secure the best possible pricing, potentially resulting in higher expenditures for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Navy, which receives critical components for its missile systems. The contract delivers specialized parts essential for the operation and maintenance of guided missile and space vehicles. The geographic impact is primarily centered around the contractor's facilities in Massachusetts, though the end-use of the components is national defense. Workforce implications include the continued employment and specialized skill utilization at The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated pricing.
Sole-source awards reduce transparency in pricing.
Dependence on a single contractor can create supply chain risks.
Limited public data on performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Award to a known entity, The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc., suggests a level of established capability.
Firm Fixed Price contract type can provide cost certainty for the government.
The contract supports a critical defense capability, ensuring national security.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on guided missile and space vehicle components. This is a highly specialized area characterized by significant R&D investment, stringent quality control, and often, limited competition due to proprietary technology and security requirements. Comparable spending in this niche can vary widely based on specific program needs and technological advancements.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The award to a large, established contractor like The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. suggests that the primary focus was on specialized capabilities rather than broad small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and procurement regulations. Specific oversight mechanisms would include contract administration by the relevant Navy contracting office, performance reviews, and potentially audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature, but contract award data is publicly available through federal procurement databases.

Related Government Programs

Guided Missile Manufacturing
Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Defense Procurement
Department of the Navy Contracts
Sole-Source Defense Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for inflated pricing
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $302.4 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. IGF::CT::IGF MOD1 GS OTHER SPALT MATERIAL

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 $302.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-02-02. End: 2019-03-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. with the Department of Defense, particularly for similar components?

Analyzing historical spending for The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. with the Department of Defense reveals a consistent relationship, particularly in areas related to advanced engineering and specialized components. While specific dollar amounts for identical 'Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts' are not readily available without deeper database queries, Draper Laboratory has a long-standing history of securing significant contracts for research, development, and production of critical defense systems. This includes work on inertial navigation, guidance systems, and other complex technologies integral to missile and space programs. The $302 million awarded in this instance is substantial, but it aligns with the typical scale of contracts awarded to major defense contractors for highly specialized, non-commodity items. Understanding the frequency and value of past awards can provide context for the current contract's significance and the contractor's established role within the DoD supply chain.

How does the $302 million contract value compare to other 'Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts' contracts awarded by the DoD in recent years?

The $302 million contract value for 'Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts' awarded to The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. is a significant sum, placing it among the larger awards within this specific product service code (PSC) or NAICS code category. While a comprehensive real-time comparison requires access to extensive federal procurement databases and filtering by exact product descriptions, contracts in this domain often range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. Awards of this magnitude typically involve complex manufacturing, specialized materials, and extensive testing, reflecting the high-stakes nature of defense components. The sole-source nature of this award means it cannot be directly compared to competitively bid contracts for price efficiency. However, the dollar amount suggests a substantial and critical need for the specified parts within the Department of the Navy's operational requirements.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude for critical defense components?

A sole-source award of this magnitude for critical defense components carries several inherent risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can lead to suboptimal pricing, as the government does not benefit from the cost-saving pressures of a bidding process. This could result in taxpayers paying more than necessary. Secondly, there's a risk of contractor complacency or reduced innovation over the contract's lifespan, as the absence of competitive threats may lessen the incentive to improve efficiency or develop more cost-effective solutions. Thirdly, sole-source awards can create a dependency on a single supplier, making the supply chain vulnerable to disruptions caused by the contractor's financial instability, production issues, or geopolitical factors affecting the contractor. Finally, without competitive benchmarking, it is harder to objectively assess whether the awarded price truly reflects the value delivered, potentially masking inefficiencies or cost overruns.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms are typically in place for contracts of this nature, even if not publicly detailed?

Even for sole-source contracts of this magnitude, robust performance metrics and oversight mechanisms are generally expected within the Department of Defense. While specific details are often sensitive, typical oversight includes regular progress reviews between the contracting officer and the contractor, milestone tracking, and quality assurance inspections. The contract likely includes clauses for defect reporting, warranty provisions, and adherence to stringent military specifications. Payment schedules are often tied to the achievement of specific deliverables or performance targets. Furthermore, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or equivalent bodies would likely be involved in monitoring contractor performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and verifying the quality of delivered goods. Inspector General offices within the DoD also provide an independent layer of oversight to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Given the 'Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts' classification, what specific types of components might this contract cover?

The classification 'Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' (NAICS 336419) is broad and encompasses a wide array of components beyond the primary propulsion or guidance systems. This contract could potentially cover items such as structural components, specialized casings, mounts, actuators, sensors, connectors, wiring harnesses, thermal management systems, or auxiliary power units specific to missile and space vehicle platforms. It might also include specialized testing equipment or ground support components directly related to these vehicles. The 'auxiliary equipment' aspect suggests parts that support the main systems but are not necessarily core operational elements themselves. The exact nature of the parts would depend on the specific missile or space vehicle programs supported by the Department of the Navy.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: GUIDED MISSLES

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: 555 TECHNOLOGY SQ, 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: $345,055,165

Exercised Options: $345,055,165

Current Obligation: $302,443,626

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 20

Total Subaward Amount: $8,651,775

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline