Department of Defense awards $38.9M contract for Defender Pouch Kits to W S DARLEY & CO

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $38,922,640 ($38.9M)

Contractor: W S Darley & CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-03-11

End Date: 2025-01-14

Contract Duration: 309 days

Daily Burn Rate: $126.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 29

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 4563937081!MODEL DEFENDER POUCH KIT

Place of Performance

Location: ITASCA, DUPAGE County, ILLINOIS, 60143

State: Illinois Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $38.9 million to W S DARLEY & CO for work described as: 4563937081!MODEL DEFENDER POUCH KIT Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in essential defense equipment. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are detailed, indicating a structured procurement process. 3. Risk indicators are assessed based on contract type and duration. 4. Performance context is established by the service and equipment category. 5. The contract positions the supplier within the Defense Logistics Agency's supply chain for specialized gear.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The awarded amount of $38.9 million for Defender Pouch Kits appears reasonable given the nature of defense procurement. Benchmarking against similar specialized equipment contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating that multiple vendors were likely considered. The presence of 29 bids suggests a robust competitive environment, which typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. The exclusion of sources clause may indicate specific technical requirements or prior performance considerations that narrowed the initial pool.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process with numerous offers generally leads to better pricing for taxpayers, ensuring the government secures goods and services at market-competitive rates.

Public Impact

Personnel within the Department of Defense, particularly those requiring the Defender Pouch Kit, are the primary beneficiaries. The contract ensures the supply of critical equipment for operational readiness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around military installations where these kits are distributed and utilized. Workforce implications are minimal, primarily affecting the logistics and supply chain personnel involved in contract fulfillment and distribution.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for long-term reliance on a single supplier if follow-on contracts are awarded without re-competition.
The specific nature of 'Defender Pouch Kit' could imply specialized manufacturing requirements that might limit future competition.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad market search.
Firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Multiple bids received (29) suggest a healthy competitive landscape at the time of award.

Sector Analysis

The procurement of specialized equipment like the Defender Pouch Kit falls within the broader defense logistics and equipment manufacturing sector. This sector is characterized by high technological standards, stringent quality control, and often, long-term government contracts. The market size for such niche defense supplies can vary, but contracts like this are crucial for maintaining the operational capabilities of military forces. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within the Defense Logistics Agency's historical data for similar equipment categories.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication of a small business set-aside for this contract, nor are there immediate implications for subcontracting based on the provided data. The award to W S DARLEY & CO, a known entity in defense supply, suggests it may not be a small business itself. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses are involved as subcontractors or if this contract could have been structured to include them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) through its contracting officers and quality assurance representatives. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified goods. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like SAM.gov. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense Logistics Agency Procurement
Military Equipment and Supplies
Tactical Gear Contracts
Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

Risk Flags

Potential for quality issues if contractor seeks to maximize profit under FFP.
Risk of contractor default or failure to deliver.
Need for robust quality assurance to ensure equipment meets specifications.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $38.9 million to W S DARLEY & CO. 4563937081!MODEL DEFENDER POUCH KIT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is W S DARLEY & CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $38.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-03-11. End: 2025-01-14.

What is the historical spending pattern for Defender Pouch Kits or similar items by the Department of Defense?

Analyzing historical spending for Defender Pouch Kits or analogous items by the Department of Defense requires access to comprehensive contract databases and procurement histories. Without specific historical data for this exact item, we can infer trends from broader categories like 'Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers' (ND code provided). The Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), as the awarding agency, manages a vast portfolio of such procurements. Typically, spending in this category can fluctuate based on operational tempo, modernization efforts, and specific unit requirements. A review of past solicitations and awards for similar pouch systems or tactical gear would reveal average contract values, quantities, and pricing trends. For instance, if previous awards for comparable kits were significantly lower or higher, it would provide context for the current $38.9 million award. Furthermore, examining the frequency of such awards could indicate whether this is a recurring need or a one-time large procurement.

How does the price per unit for these Defender Pouch Kits compare to market rates or similar government contracts?

Determining the precise price per unit requires dividing the total contract value ($38,922,640.24) by the quantity of kits procured. However, the quantity is not explicitly provided in the abbreviated data. Assuming a hypothetical quantity, say 10,000 units, the price per unit would be approximately $3,892. This figure needs to be benchmarked against industry standards for tactical equipment and similar government contracts. Factors influencing the price include material quality, specialized features, manufacturing complexity, and brand reputation. If comparable government contracts for similar tactical pouches awarded under competitive bidding show significantly lower unit prices, it might suggest this contract's pricing is on the higher end. Conversely, if the features are highly specialized or the materials superior, a higher price could be justified. A thorough comparison would involve analyzing specifications and quantities from other relevant awards.

What is the track record of W S DARLEY & CO with Department of Defense contracts?

W S DARLEY & CO has a history of contracting with the Department of Defense, as indicated by their presence in federal procurement databases. To assess their track record, one would examine past awards, including their value, type (e.g., firm fixed price, cost-plus), and performance history. Key metrics include on-time delivery rates, quality compliance, and any instances of contract disputes or terminations. A review of past performance evaluations, if available, would provide insights into their reliability and capability. Companies with a consistent record of successful contract fulfillment are generally considered lower risk. Conversely, a history of performance issues could raise concerns about the contractor's ability to meet the requirements of this new $38.9 million award for Defender Pouch Kits.

What are the potential risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract?

While firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally favored for shifting cost risk to the contractor, potential risks still exist. For the government, the primary risk is that the contractor may cut corners on quality or materials to maximize profit, especially if the initial price was set too low or if unforeseen production issues arise. This could lead to subpar equipment that fails in the field. Another risk is contractor default; if W S DARLEY & CO faces financial difficulties or operational challenges, they might be unable to fulfill the contract, leading to delays and the need for re-procurement. The government also bears the risk of paying a premium if the contractor's initial cost estimates were overly conservative and they achieve unexpectedly high profit margins. Monitoring contract performance and quality assurance are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How does the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' clause impact price discovery and potential contractor pool?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' clause signifies that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain entities were excluded from bidding. This exclusion is typically based on specific, justifiable criteria, such as unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or prior performance issues with certain vendors. While it aims for broad competition among eligible sources, the exclusion inherently narrows the potential bidder pool compared to unrestricted full and open competition. This narrowing could potentially limit price discovery if the excluded sources were significant competitors or offered substantially different pricing structures. The impact on taxpayers depends on the justification for exclusion; if the exclusion was necessary for technical reasons and the remaining competition was robust (as suggested by 29 bids), the price discovery might still be effective. However, if the exclusion was arbitrary or overly restrictive, it could lead to less competitive pricing.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Wholesale Trade › Machinery, Equipment, and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers › Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

Product/Service Code: FIRE/RESCUE/SAFETY; ENVIRO PROTECT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 29

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 325 SPRING LAKE DR, ITASCA, IL, 60143

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $38,922,640

Exercised Options: $38,922,640

Current Obligation: $38,922,640

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SPE8EJ21D1025

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline