Precision Metals Corp. awarded $10.17M for MK93 MG Mounts, a sole-source contract with 2 bids

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,170,450 ($10.2M)

Contractor: Precision Metals Corp.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-09-13

End Date: 2011-04-29

Contract Duration: 1,324 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: MK93 MG MOUNT

Place of Performance

Location: BAY SHORE, SUFFOLK County, NEW YORK, 11706

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.2 million to PRECISION METALS CORP. for work described as: MK93 MG MOUNT Key points: 1. Contract value of $10.17 million for specialized ordnance components. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for higher pricing. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs. 4. Contract duration of 1324 days indicates a long-term need. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Army, highlighting defense sector focus. 6. Small business status not met, indicating larger contractor involvement.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.17 million for MK93 MG Mounts appears reasonable given the specialized nature of ordnance manufacturing. However, without specific benchmark data for this particular mount or comparable systems, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, but the limited competition could have led to a less competitive price than a fully open process.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' with two bids received. This indicates that while some level of competition was sought, specific criteria or exclusions limited the pool of potential bidders. The presence of two bidders suggests some market interest, but it falls short of a broad, open competition which typically yields more competitive pricing and a wider range of solutions.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition means taxpayers may not have benefited from the most aggressive pricing achievable through a wider bidding process. The government secured a supplier, but the potential for cost savings through broader market engagement was likely constrained.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army personnel who will be equipped with the MK93 MG Mounts, enhancing their operational capabilities. The contract delivers essential components for small arms and ordnance systems, crucial for military effectiveness. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense supply chain, with potential for manufacturing activities in New York. Workforce implications include skilled manufacturing jobs in specialized metal fabrication and ordnance production.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition may have resulted in a higher price than a fully open bid.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants scrutiny to ensure it was justified and not unduly restrictive.
Lack of small business set-aside could limit opportunities for smaller specialized manufacturers.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to a known entity (Precision Metals Corp.) suggests a degree of reliability.
The contract addresses a specific, critical need for ordnance accessories.

Sector Analysis

The defense manufacturing sector is characterized by high barriers to entry, stringent quality requirements, and specialized production capabilities. Contracts for ordnance and accessories, like the MK93 MG Mount, are critical for maintaining military readiness. Spending in this sub-sector is driven by defense budgets and modernization efforts. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other contracts for similar weapon system components or mounts, often awarded through competitive processes with multiple bidders.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data does not indicate any subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor, Precision Metals Corp., is likely a larger entity capable of fulfilling the contract requirements independently. The absence of small business involvement means that opportunities for smaller, specialized firms within the defense supply chain were not explicitly prioritized in this award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified goods at an agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases, though detailed performance metrics and specific oversight activities are typically internal to the agency. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Small Arms Manufacturing
Ordnance Accessories
Defense Procurement
Military Hardware
Weapon System Components

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for Price Inflation
Justification for Source Exclusion Needs Review

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.2 million to PRECISION METALS CORP.. MK93 MG MOUNT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PRECISION METALS CORP..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-13. End: 2011-04-29.

What is the track record of Precision Metals Corp. in fulfilling defense contracts, particularly for ordnance components?

Assessing the track record of Precision Metals Corp. requires a review of their past performance on similar defense contracts. Information regarding their history with the Department of the Army or other branches, specifically concerning the production of ordnance, weapon mounts, or related accessories, would be crucial. Key indicators include on-time delivery rates, quality compliance, and any history of contract disputes or modifications. A deeper dive into their contract history, including the value and complexity of previous awards, would provide context for their capability to handle the MK93 MG Mount requirement. Without specific historical data on this contractor's performance, it is difficult to definitively assess their reliability for this particular award.

How does the awarded price of $10.17 million compare to market rates for similar MK93 MG Mounts or comparable ordnance accessories?

A direct comparison of the $10.17 million total award value to current market rates for the MK93 MG Mount is challenging without access to detailed pricing breakdowns and specific market intelligence. The 'per-unit cost' is not provided, which is essential for a granular benchmark. However, considering the contract duration of 1324 days (approximately 3.6 years) and the nature of specialized defense components, the total value suggests a significant quantity or a high per-unit cost. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify other government or commercial contracts for the same or functionally equivalent mounts, analyze the number of units procured, and compare the unit prices. The limited competition (2 bidders) also suggests that the price might be higher than if it were a fully open, highly contested bid.

What are the specific risks associated with a 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award, and how were they mitigated?

The primary risk with 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' is that the exclusion of certain potential bidders, even if justified, can limit the competitive landscape. This can lead to higher prices, fewer innovative solutions, or a reduced pool of qualified suppliers. Mitigation strategies typically involve a clear, documented justification for the exclusion, ensuring that the criteria used are objective, necessary for the requirement, and do not unfairly disadvantage capable sources. The agency should have conducted thorough market research to confirm that the excluded sources were indeed not capable or that the included sources represented the best value. The presence of two bidders suggests some level of competition was achieved, but the specific nature of the exclusion is key to understanding the full risk profile.

What is the expected program effectiveness and impact of the MK93 MG Mounts on military operations?

The MK93 MG Mount is a critical component designed to stabilize and enhance the performance of machine guns, likely in various military platforms. Its effectiveness directly impacts the accuracy, reliability, and operational readiness of infantry units and potentially vehicle-mounted weapon systems. By providing a stable firing platform, the mount allows for sustained and precise fire, which is crucial in combat scenarios for suppressing enemy forces and achieving mission objectives. The procurement of these mounts signifies a commitment to equipping soldiers with reliable and effective weapon accessories, thereby contributing to overall force capability and survivability. The program's success hinges on the quality and durability of the mounts delivered under this contract.

How has historical spending on MK93 MG Mounts or similar ordnance accessories trended over the past five years?

Analyzing historical spending trends for MK93 MG Mounts or similar ordnance accessories requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data over the specified period. Without this data, it's impossible to provide a trend analysis. However, spending in this category is typically influenced by factors such as military operational tempo, equipment modernization cycles, and overall defense budget allocations. If there has been consistent procurement of these mounts, it suggests an ongoing need and a stable requirement. Conversely, significant fluctuations might indicate changes in doctrine, the introduction of new technologies, or budget constraints. A detailed review of past contracts, including award dates, values, and quantities, would reveal whether spending has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining relatively constant.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing › Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: WEAPONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 221 SKIP LN, BAY SHORE, NY, 11706

Business Categories: Category Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,170,450

Exercised Options: $10,170,450

Current Obligation: $10,170,450

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W52H0907D0379

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline