Army's $79M contract for R&D services awarded to A-P-T Research Inc. shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,491,013 ($10.5M)

Contractor: A-P-T Research, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-11-18

End Date: 2008-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,412 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: R&D

Official Description: 200502!500047!2100!W9124R!ACA, YUMA PROVING GROUND !GS23F0153L !C!N! !N!W9124R05F3004!P00001!20041118!20040930!791195167!791195167!791195167!N!A-P-T RESEARCH INC !4950 RESEARCH DR NW !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!85680!027!04!YUMA PROVING GROUND !YUMA !ARIZONA !+000001178284!N!N!000000000000!R799!OTHER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541690!E! !6! ! !C! ! !20200930!B! ! ! ! !A! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Y!B!N!N! ! ! ! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!Y!

Place of Performance

Location: YUMA, YUMA County, ARIZONA, 85365

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.5 million to A-P-T RESEARCH, INC. for work described as: 200502!500047!2100!W9124R!ACA, YUMA PROVING GROUND !GS23F0153L !C!N! !N!W9124R05F3004!P00001!20041118!20040930!791195167!791195167!791195167!N!A-P-T RESEARCH INC !4950 RESEARCH DR NW !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!85680!027!04!YUMA PROVING GROUND !YUMA… Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its duration and the number of bids received. 2. Limited competition may have impacted pricing and overall value for taxpayer dollars. 3. The 'Other Management Support Services' classification suggests a broad scope, requiring detailed performance review. 4. A significant portion of the contract value was awarded late in its performance period. 5. The contractor's track record and the specific nature of the R&D services warrant closer examination. 6. The contract's duration and the final award amount raise questions about initial cost estimations and potential overruns.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total contract value of $79.1 million over approximately 4 years (November 2004 to September 2008) for 'Other Management Support Services' at Yuma Proving Ground warrants scrutiny. While specific performance metrics are not detailed, the significant expenditure for R&D services, especially with limited competition, suggests a potential for overpayment. Benchmarking against similar R&D support contracts within the Department of Defense or Army would be necessary to definitively assess value for money. The contract's structure, potentially time and materials, can also lead to cost escalation if not tightly managed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which is generally positive for price discovery. However, the data indicates only one bid was received. This extremely low number of bids, despite the 'full and open' designation, suggests potential issues with market reach, solicitation clarity, or contractor interest, which could limit competitive pressure and lead to less favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: When only one bid is received in a full and open competition, taxpayers may not benefit from the full range of competitive pricing and innovation that a more robust bidding process could yield, potentially leading to higher costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of the Army and its research initiatives at Yuma Proving Ground. The contract supports research and development activities, contributing to advancements in defense technologies or operational capabilities. The geographic impact is concentrated at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, potentially supporting local economic activity and specialized workforce needs. Workforce implications include employment for personnel involved in R&D support services, likely requiring specialized skills.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Low number of bids (1) in a full and open competition raises concerns about effective market engagement and potential price inflation.
Significant portion of the contract value ($79.1M) awarded late in the performance period could indicate scope creep or initial underestimation.
The 'Other Management Support Services' classification is broad and may obscure the specific value and effectiveness of the R&D support provided.
The contract type (Time and Materials) can lead to cost overruns if not meticulously monitored and controlled.
The duration of the contract (over 4 years) combined with the limited competition warrants a review of long-term cost efficiency.

Positive Signals

Awarded under 'full and open competition' theoretically allows for the widest possible participation.
The contract supports critical R&D functions for the Department of the Army.
The contractor, A-P-T Research Inc., is a known entity in the R&D support space.
The contract was awarded to a single entity, potentially allowing for focused expertise and streamlined project management.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences (NAICS 541710). The federal R&D spending landscape is vast, with significant investments made annually across various agencies, particularly the Department of Defense. Contracts like this support the innovation pipeline, aiming to develop new technologies and enhance existing capabilities. Benchmarking would involve comparing this contract's cost structure and outcomes against other DoD R&D support services contracts.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false) and did not involve small business subcontracting (sb: false). Therefore, this contract does not appear to have a direct positive impact on the small business ecosystem through set-asides or mandated subcontracting goals. The focus was likely on specialized capabilities available from larger or non-small business entities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Army contracting and program management offices at Yuma Proving Ground. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations into potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, but detailed performance reports and specific oversight actions are not publicly detailed in this summary data.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
Army R&D Support Services
Yuma Proving Ground Operations Support
Management and Technical Consulting Services
Federal Contract Spending in Arizona

Risk Flags

Low Bidder Count
Potential Value Concerns
Broad Service Classification
Late Award Allocation
Contract Type Risk (T&M)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.5 million to A-P-T RESEARCH, INC.. 200502!500047!2100!W9124R!ACA, YUMA PROVING GROUND !GS23F0153L !C!N! !N!W9124R05F3004!P00001!20041118!20040930!791195167!791195167!791195167!N!A-P-T RESEARCH INC !4950 RESEARCH DR NW !HUNTSVILLE !AL!35805!85680!027!04!YUMA PROVING GROUND !YUMA !ARIZONA !+000001178284!N!N!000000000000!R799!OTHER MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541690!E! !6! ! !C! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is A-P-T RESEARCH, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-11-18. End: 2008-09-30.

What was the specific nature of the 'Other Management Support Services' provided under this contract, and how did they contribute to R&D objectives at Yuma Proving Ground?

The classification 'Other Management Support Services' (PSC R799) is broad and lacks specificity regarding the exact tasks performed. Typically, such services could encompass program management, administrative support, technical assistance, logistical coordination, or specialized consulting related to research and development projects. For this contract, these services likely supported the execution of various R&D initiatives managed by the Army at Yuma Proving Ground. Without detailed performance reports or task descriptions, it's difficult to ascertain the precise contribution to R&D objectives. However, the substantial value suggests these services were integral to the functioning or advancement of specific research programs, potentially involving project planning, resource allocation, data management, or facilitating communication between research teams and leadership.

How does the total contract value of $79.1 million compare to similar R&D support contracts awarded by the Department of the Army during the mid-2000s?

Comparing the $79.1 million contract value requires context regarding the specific R&D domain and the duration. During the mid-2000s, large-scale R&D support contracts within the Department of Defense, especially those involving complex projects or extensive technical support, could reach tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. However, the key factors for comparison are the scope of services, the duration (this contract ran for nearly four years), the number of bids received, and the specific R&D area. A contract of this magnitude for 'management support' in R&D, especially with only one bid, might be considered high if the services were primarily administrative or logistical. If it involved highly specialized technical expertise or critical project management for cutting-edge research, the value might be more justifiable, but still warrants scrutiny given the limited competition.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a nearly $80 million contract with only one bid, even if it was designated as 'full and open competition'?

Awarding a large contract with only one bid, despite 'full and open competition,' presents several risks. Firstly, it significantly reduces the government's leverage in price negotiation, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple bids were present. Secondly, it raises questions about whether the solicitation effectively reached the relevant market or if barriers to entry discouraged other potential bidders. This could indicate a lack of qualified contractors, poor solicitation design, or insufficient outreach. Thirdly, it limits the government's ability to assess a range of technical approaches and innovative solutions. Finally, a single-bid scenario can sometimes be a red flag for potential collusion or market manipulation, although this is less likely without further evidence. The primary risk for taxpayers is paying a non-competitive price for the goods or services received.

Given the contract's end date was in 2008, what insights can be gleaned from historical spending patterns for similar services at Yuma Proving Ground or within the Army's R&D budget?

Analyzing historical spending patterns from the mid-2000s for R&D support services at Yuma Proving Ground or similar Army installations would provide valuable context. If spending on such services was consistently high and concentrated among a few providers, this contract might align with established trends. Conversely, if this $79.1 million contract represents a significant outlier in terms of value or duration compared to previous or subsequent contracts for similar services, it would heighten concerns about its justification. Examining the Army's overall R&D budget allocation during that period can also reveal whether investments in support services were increasing or decreasing. Without access to detailed historical data specific to Yuma Proving Ground's support contracts, a precise comparison is difficult, but general trends in DoD contracting can suggest whether this expenditure was typical or anomalous.

What was the contractor's (A-P-T Research Inc.) performance history and track record with the federal government, particularly the Department of the Army, prior to and during this contract?

Information regarding A-P-T Research Inc.'s performance history prior to and during this specific $79.1 million contract would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment. Federal procurement systems often track contractor performance evaluations (e.g., through CPARS - Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System). A review of these records would indicate whether the company met performance expectations, adhered to schedules, managed costs effectively, and maintained quality standards. A positive performance history would lend more confidence to the contract's execution, while a history of issues could amplify concerns about value and oversight. Without specific CPARS data or other performance metrics, assessing the contractor's track record relies on general knowledge of their market presence and any publicly available information on past contract performance.

Were there any specific justifications or circumstances documented for the low number of bids received for this significant R&D support contract?

The documentation for this contract should ideally contain justifications for the low number of bids, especially if it was designated 'full and open competition.' Agencies are typically required to document market research findings and the rationale behind solicitation strategies. Possible justifications could include the highly specialized or unique nature of the required R&D support services, making only a few contractors capable of meeting the requirements. Alternatively, the solicitation might have been complex, requiring significant pre-qualification or proposal preparation efforts that deterred smaller or less experienced firms. Economic conditions or shifts in contractor priorities during the mid-2000s could also have played a role. Without access to the official justification documents (e.g., sources sought notices, market research reports, or acquisition plans), it remains speculative why only one bid was submitted.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4950 RESEARCH DR NW, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 05

Business Categories: Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Small Business, Special Designations

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS23F0153L

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline