Department of Defense awards $11.8M contract for radar equipment, highlighting potential value concerns due to sole-source nature

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,799,186 ($11.8M)

Contractor: Harris Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-06-28

End Date: 2009-08-28

Contract Duration: 2,618 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200209!000288!5700!GE75 !OO-ALC/PKHC/LHKC !F0460698D0045 !A!N! !N!QP02 !20020628!20041029!004203337!004203337!004203337!N!HARRIS CORPORATION !1025 W NASA BLVD !MELBOURNE !FL!32919!43975!009!12!MELBOURNE !BREVARD !FLORIDA !+000011750010!N!N!000000000000!5840!RADAR EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT AIRBORNE !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541330!E! !5!B!S! ! !C!20050713!B! ! !N!B!D!N!J!1!001!N!1G!A!Y!F! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! !Y! !FA8217!0001!

Place of Performance

Location: PALM BAY, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32905

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.8 million to HARRIS CORPORATION for work described as: 200209!000288!5700!GE75 !OO-ALC/PKHC/LHKC !F0460698D0045 !A!N! !N!QP02 !20020628!20041029!004203337!004203337!004203337!N!HARRIS CORPORATION !1025 W NASA BLVD !MELBOURNE !FL!32919!43975!009!12!MELBOURNE !BREVA… Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition and potentially increasing costs. 2. The contract duration of over 7 years (2618 days) suggests a long-term need for the specified radar equipment. 3. The primary contractor, Harris Corporation, has a significant presence in the defense sector. 4. The Public Law 115-91, Section 804, indicates a potential for non-competitive awards under specific circumstances. 5. The contract's value of $11.8M falls within a moderate spending range for specialized defense equipment. 6. The absence of small business participation raises questions about broader economic impact.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $11.8 million for radar equipment, awarded sole-source, makes direct value-for-money assessment challenging. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to benchmark against market rates or similar contracts. The extended duration of over seven years suggests a sustained need, but the lack of competition means taxpayers may not have received the most advantageous pricing. Further analysis would be needed to determine if the price reflects fair market value for the specialized radar equipment and associated services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically used when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. The lack of competition means that the Department of Defense did not benefit from a bidding process, which could have led to lower prices or more innovative solutions from multiple vendors. The specific justification for this sole-source award would need to be examined to understand why other potential sources were excluded.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This limits the government's ability to secure the best possible deal.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Department of Defense, specifically the Air Force, which will receive radar equipment. The contract supports the operational readiness and technological capabilities of the U.S. Air Force. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, with potential deployment to various Air Force installations. The contract likely supports specialized technical roles within the defense industry, potentially impacting a skilled workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
Lack of small business participation may reduce opportunities for smaller firms in the defense supply chain.
Long contract duration could lead to price increases if market conditions change significantly.
Limited transparency due to sole-source nature makes independent value assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Award to Harris Corporation, a known defense contractor, suggests a potentially reliable supplier for critical equipment.
Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the government once awarded.
The contract addresses a specific need for radar equipment, indicating a focused procurement strategy.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Electronics and Communication' sector, specifically related to radar equipment. The market for defense-related electronics is characterized by high technological requirements, long development cycles, and significant government investment. Comparable spending benchmarks for specialized radar systems can vary widely based on capabilities, but contracts in the tens of millions are common for advanced systems. This contract represents a portion of the broader defense spending on surveillance and communication technologies.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside. The sole-source nature of the award further limits opportunities for small businesses to participate, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, unless they are specifically engaged by the prime. This could mean that the economic benefits of this contract are concentrated among larger corporations, with limited direct impact on the small business defense ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and financial management offices, as well as the relevant Inspector General. The specific terms of the contract, including delivery schedules and performance standards, would be monitored. However, the sole-source nature might reduce the level of scrutiny typically applied during a competitive bidding process. Transparency could be enhanced by making the justification for the sole-source award publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Defense Radar Systems Procurement
Air Force Communication and Navigation Equipment
Sole-Source Defense Contracts
Electronics and Communication Equipment Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for overpricing
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.8 million to HARRIS CORPORATION. 200209!000288!5700!GE75 !OO-ALC/PKHC/LHKC !F0460698D0045 !A!N! !N!QP02 !20020628!20041029!004203337!004203337!004203337!N!HARRIS CORPORATION !1025 W NASA BLVD !MELBOURNE !FL!32919!43975!009!12!MELBOURNE !BREVARD !FLORIDA !+000011750010!N!N!000000000000!5840!RADAR EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT AIRBORNE !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541330!E! !5!B!S! ! !C!20050713!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HARRIS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-06-28. End: 2009-08-28.

What is the specific type of radar equipment being procured and its intended application?

The data indicates the Product Service Code (PSC) is 5840, which covers 'Radar Equipment, Except Airborne'. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541330 for 'Engineering Services'. While the exact model or specific application isn't detailed in the provided data, the PSC suggests ground-based or non-aviation-specific radar systems. These could be used for various purposes such as surveillance, target tracking, weather monitoring, or air traffic control support, depending on the Air Force's specific operational requirements. Further details on the contract's statement of work would clarify the precise nature and use of the radar equipment.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and implies a sole-source award. Federal procurement regulations allow for sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities, technology, or proprietary information required, or in cases of urgent and compelling need where competition is not feasible. Without access to the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition - J&A), the precise reason for this sole-source award remains unknown. This lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions and potentially secure better pricing.

How does the $11.8 million contract value compare to similar radar equipment procurements by the Department of Defense?

Benchmarking the $11.8 million contract value for radar equipment requires comparing it to similar procurements, considering factors like system capabilities, quantity, and technology generation. As this was a sole-source award, direct price comparisons are difficult. However, the Department of Defense procures a wide range of radar systems, from smaller, specialized units to large, complex integrated systems. Contracts for advanced radar technology can range from a few million to hundreds of millions of dollars. The $11.8 million figure suggests a moderately sized procurement, possibly for a specific upgrade, a limited number of units, or specialized engineering services related to radar systems, rather than a large-scale fleet-wide acquisition.

What is Harris Corporation's track record with the Department of Defense, particularly in radar systems?

Harris Corporation (now L3Harris Technologies) is a well-established defense contractor with a significant history of providing advanced electronic systems, including radar, to the U.S. military. They have been involved in numerous contracts for various defense platforms and applications. Their track record generally indicates substantial experience and capability in developing and manufacturing sophisticated electronic warfare, communication, and sensor systems. Specific to radar, Harris has delivered solutions for airborne, ground-based, and maritime applications. While this specific contract was sole-source, the company's broader portfolio suggests they possess the technical expertise relevant to the procurement of radar equipment.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this duration?

Sole-source contracts, especially those with a long duration like this one (over 7 years), carry several potential risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can lead to inflated prices over the contract's life, as the contractor faces no market pressure to reduce costs. Secondly, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes heavily reliant on a single supplier, making it difficult and costly to switch providers even if performance or pricing becomes unsatisfactory. Thirdly, without competitive input, the government might miss out on technological advancements or more cost-effective solutions that could emerge from other vendors during the contract period. Finally, sole-source awards can sometimes indicate a lack of adequate market research or planning by the procuring agency.

Are there any performance metrics or oversight mechanisms specified for this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract type is 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' (pt: 'FIRM FIXED PRICE'), which generally implies that the contractor is obligated to complete the work for a predetermined price. While specific performance metrics are not detailed in the summary data, firm-fixed-price contracts typically include clauses related to delivery schedules, quality standards, and acceptance criteria. Oversight would be managed by the contracting officer and potentially technical representatives within the Air Force. However, the extent and rigor of oversight can vary. The data does not specify if an Inspector General (IG) is involved or if there are detailed reporting requirements beyond standard contract administration.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

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: P.O. BOX 91000, MELBOURNE, FL, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: F0460698D0045

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline