DoD's $28.7M R&D contract with Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory awarded via sole-source

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,674,371 ($28.7M)

Contractor: Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-09-07

End Date: 2024-09-06

Contract Duration: 730 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, & TECHNICAL SVCS

Place of Performance

Location: LOGAN, CACHE County, UTAH, 84341

State: Utah Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.7 million to UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY SPACE DYNAMICS LABORATORY for work described as: RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, & TECHNICAL SVCS Key points: 1. Contract focuses on advanced research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences. 2. Sole-source award raises questions about potential for competitive pricing and broader market engagement. 3. Long duration of 730 days suggests a significant, ongoing research effort. 4. Contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost overruns if not managed carefully. 5. The base award amount is substantial, indicating a high-value project for the contractor. 6. Geographic concentration in Utah for this significant federal investment.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and comparison to similar sole-source R&D awards. The lack of competition inherently limits the ability to assess if the fixed fee is reasonable or if the overall cost structure represents optimal value for the government. Further analysis would require understanding the specific technical requirements and the unique capabilities of Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory.

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 offerors. This approach is typically justified when a specific entity possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or when urgency precludes a competitive process. The absence of competition means the government did not benefit from a bidding process that could drive down prices or foster innovation through diverse approaches.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to ensure the most economical price. It also limits opportunities for other businesses to secure federal contracts.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory, receiving significant federal funding for its research capabilities. The contract supports advanced research and development activities, potentially leading to technological advancements in physical, engineering, and life sciences. Geographic impact is concentrated in Utah, supporting local economic activity and the state's research infrastructure. Workforce implications include employment for researchers, engineers, and support staff at the university.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price discovery and potential savings.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost escalation if not rigorously managed.
Lack of competition may stifle broader innovation and market participation.
Limited transparency on specific research outcomes and their direct applicability.

Positive Signals

Leverages specialized research capabilities of a known academic institution.
Supports critical R&D efforts within the Department of Defense.
Provides stable funding for a significant research project over two years.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences sector, a critical area for national security and technological advancement. The market for specialized R&D services is often characterized by a few highly capable institutions and firms. While the overall federal spending on R&D is substantial, specific niches like those addressed by this contract may have limited competition due to unique expertise requirements. Benchmarking requires comparing against similar academic or specialized research contracts.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to include a small business set-aside. As a sole-source award to a large academic institution, there are likely limited direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless specifically mandated or pursued by the prime contractor. The absence of a competitive bidding process further reduces the visibility and potential for small businesses to participate in this specific contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Navy, which awarded the contract. Mechanisms would include contract performance reviews, financial audits, and adherence to reporting requirements outlined in the Cost Plus Fixed Fee agreement. Transparency is dependent on the agency's willingness to disclose contract details and performance metrics, though sole-source awards often have less public scrutiny than competed contracts.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
University Research Partnerships
Aerospace and Defense R&D
Physical Sciences Research Funding
Engineering Research Grants

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.7 million to UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY SPACE DYNAMICS LABORATORY. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, & TECHNICAL SVCS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY SPACE DYNAMICS LABORATORY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-09-07. End: 2024-09-06.

What specific research objectives does this contract aim to achieve, and how do they align with the Department of the Navy's strategic goals?

The contract, NAICS code 541715, focuses on 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)'. While the specific objectives are not detailed in the provided data, such contracts typically support advancements in areas relevant to naval operations, such as materials science, propulsion systems, sensor technology, or advanced computing for defense applications. Alignment with strategic goals would involve understanding the Navy's current R&D priorities, which often include maintaining technological superiority, enhancing platform capabilities, and developing solutions for emerging threats. Without access to the SOW (Statement of Work), a precise alignment cannot be determined, but the general domain suggests support for foundational and applied research critical to future naval systems and readiness.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure compare to other R&D contract types in terms of risk and value for the government?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure is common for R&D contracts where the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset, or where innovation is a primary goal, making it difficult to estimate costs accurately. Under CPFF, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. This structure shifts some cost risk to the government, as the final cost can exceed initial estimates if actual costs are higher than anticipated. However, the fixed fee provides the contractor with a predictable profit margin, incentivizing them to complete the work. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers more flexibility for evolving R&D but less cost certainty. Compared to Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF), CPFF lacks the explicit cost-sharing incentives for the contractor to control costs below a target.

What is the historical spending pattern for Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory with the Department of Defense, and does this contract represent a significant increase or continuation?

Analyzing historical spending requires access to a broader contract database. However, the award of a $28.7 million contract suggests that Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory (SDL) is a recognized and capable research institution with existing ties to the Department of Defense (DoD). Without specific historical data, it's difficult to definitively state if this is a significant increase or continuation. If SDL has previously received numerous smaller contracts, this could represent a substantial expansion of their role. Conversely, if they have a history of large-scale R&D awards, this might be a continuation of established support. The duration (730 days) and value indicate a significant, long-term commitment by the DoD to SDL's research capabilities.

Given the sole-source nature, what due diligence was likely performed by the Department of the Navy to ensure the necessity and reasonableness of the award?

For a sole-source award, the Department of the Navy would typically conduct thorough due diligence to justify the non-competitive nature of the procurement. This often involves documenting the unique capabilities, specialized facilities, or proprietary knowledge possessed by Utah State University Space Dynamics Laboratory that are essential for the contract's objectives. The agency would likely perform a 'should-cost' or 'will-cost' analysis to estimate the reasonableness of the proposed costs and the fixed fee. Furthermore, they would need to demonstrate that no other responsible source could meet the requirement, often through market research or by citing specific technical barriers. The justification for sole-source procurement must be formally documented and approved according to federal acquisition regulations (FAR).

What are the potential risks associated with a 730-day contract duration for R&D, particularly under a CPFF structure?

A 730-day (two-year) duration for an R&D contract, especially under a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, presents several risks. Firstly, the extended timeline increases the potential for scope creep or evolving research needs, which can lead to contract modifications and cost increases if not managed proactively. Secondly, the CPFF structure itself carries the risk of cost overruns, as the government reimburses actual costs. Over a longer period, the cumulative effect of unforeseen expenses can be substantial. Thirdly, maintaining contractor focus and performance over two years requires robust oversight. Finally, technological advancements or shifts in strategic priorities within the Department of Defense during this period could render the research outcomes less relevant or obsolete by the contract's completion, impacting the overall value realization.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › General Science and Technology R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N0017322RLM01

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 416 E INNOVATION AVE, NORTH LOGAN, UT, 84341

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Foundation, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,967,196

Exercised Options: $29,967,196

Current Obligation: $28,674,371

Actual Outlays: $5,426,567

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017322D2005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline