DoD's $21.8M contract for Goldie Detector Kits awarded to Gill Research & Development Limited raises value and competition concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,832,705 ($21.8M)

Contractor: Gill Research & Development Limited

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-02-16

End Date: 2013-09-28

Contract Duration: 590 days

Daily Burn Rate: $37.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: GOLDIE DETECTOR KITS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.8 million to GILL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED for work described as: GOLDIE DETECTOR KITS Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its duration and the limited competition. 2. Lack of competition suggests potential for inflated pricing and reduced value for taxpayer dollars. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type offers some cost certainty but doesn't mitigate the risk of overpayment due to limited bidding. 4. The contract was awarded under 'Other' defense, making direct sector-specific performance benchmarks difficult. 5. The duration of the contract (590 days) for a detector kit suggests a need for ongoing supply or development. 6. The absence of small business involvement warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $21.8 million over approximately 1.5 years for detector kits is substantial. Without comparable contract data or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively benchmark the value. However, the lack of competition (awarded as 'NOT COMPETED') inherently raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price. The firm fixed-price nature provides some predictability, but the overall value proposition is weakened by the limited bidding environment.

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. This significantly limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or leverage competitive pressures to drive down costs. The justification for a sole-source award would typically involve unique capabilities or circumstances, which are not detailed here. The absence of a competitive process means potential savings were likely forgone.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may have paid a premium, as there was no market pressure to ensure the most cost-effective solution was selected.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military personnel requiring Goldie Detector Kits for operational purposes. The contract delivers essential equipment for defense applications, contributing to national security. The geographic impact is likely global, depending on where Department of Defense units are deployed. Workforce implications may include specialized manufacturing and research roles at Gill Research & Development Limited.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition on a significant award.
Potential for overpayment due to sole-source nature.
Limited transparency on the justification for sole-source award.
No indication of small business participation or subcontracting.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to a specific company suggests a perceived need for their unique capabilities.
Contract duration indicates an ongoing requirement for the product.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under the Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology) category (NAICS 541712). This is a broad sector encompassing scientific research and experimental development. The defense industry heavily relies on R&D for technological advancement. Comparable spending benchmarks within this specific niche of detector kits are difficult to ascertain without more granular data, but overall defense R&D spending is substantial.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a factor, as the award was sole-source and the 'sb' field is false. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to contribute to this specific contract were either not pursued or not mandated, potentially limiting the broader economic impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and financial management oversight structures. The Inspector General's office within the DoD would have jurisdiction to investigate potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is limited by the lack of public justification for the sole-source award and detailed performance metrics.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
Specialized Equipment Procurement
Sole-Source Defense Acquisitions
Detector Technology Development

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about price and value.
Lack of transparency regarding justification for sole-source award.
Potential for overpayment due to limited competition.
No clear indication of small business subcontracting opportunities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.8 million to GILL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED. GOLDIE DETECTOR KITS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GILL RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-02-16. End: 2013-09-28.

What is the specific nature and function of the 'Goldie Detector Kits' and why were they deemed essential by the Department of Defense?

The provided data does not specify the exact function of the 'Goldie Detector Kits.' However, given the context of a Department of Defense (DoD) contract and the NAICS code for Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences, these kits likely serve a critical operational or analytical purpose within military applications. This could range from environmental monitoring, threat detection (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear), or diagnostic tools for equipment. The essential nature would be determined by mission requirements, operational necessity, and the absence of readily available, competitive alternatives that meet the stringent performance standards required by the DoD.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through a competitive bidding process?

The data indicates the contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED,' implying a sole-source justification. Common reasons for sole-source awards include unique capabilities possessed by only one contractor, urgent and compelling needs where competition is impractical, or when the government has already made substantial investments in a particular system or technology that necessitates further development or procurement from the original source. Without specific documentation from the DoD, the precise justification remains unknown, but it would typically require a formal determination that competition is not feasible or not in the government's best interest.

How does the $21.8 million award compare to historical spending on similar detector kits or R&D projects within the DoD?

Direct historical spending comparisons for 'Goldie Detector Kits' are not available in the provided data. However, the $21.8 million award over approximately 1.5 years represents a significant investment. To benchmark this, one would need to analyze historical DoD contracts for similar detection technologies, considering factors like quantity, technological sophistication, and contract duration. The R&D sector (NAICS 541712) within the DoD is vast, with spending varying widely based on project scope. The lack of competition here makes direct price-to-price comparisons challenging, but the overall sum warrants scrutiny against established R&D spending patterns for specialized equipment.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a contract of this magnitude without competition?

The primary risk of awarding a contract without competition is the potential for paying a higher price than would be achieved through a competitive process. This is often referred to as 'lack of price discovery.' Other risks include reduced innovation, as there's less incentive for the sole provider to improve their offering, and potential complacency. Furthermore, it raises questions about whether the government truly explored all available options and secured the best value. For taxpayers, this translates to a less efficient use of public funds and potentially a higher overall cost for the required goods or services.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms were likely in place to ensure the successful delivery of the Goldie Detector Kits?

While specific performance metrics are not detailed in the provided data, typical oversight mechanisms for DoD contracts include contract performance reports, milestone reviews, and quality assurance checks. Given the firm fixed-price nature, the contractor, Gill Research & Development Limited, is incentivized to meet the contract's specifications within budget. The Department of the Army, as the servicing agency, would likely have contracting officers' representatives (CORs) responsible for monitoring technical progress and ensuring deliverables meet requirements. The DoD's Inspector General's office also provides an oversight layer for accountability.

What is the track record of Gill Research & Development Limited in fulfilling government contracts, particularly within the defense sector?

The provided data identifies Gill Research & Development Limited as the contractor but does not offer details on their historical performance or track record with government contracts. A comprehensive analysis would require accessing databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or SAM.gov to review past awards, contract values, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or terminations. Without this information, it's impossible to assess their reliability or past success in delivering similar products or services to the government.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: ALARM, SIGNAL, SECURITY DETECTION

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: SALTMARSH PARK, LYMINGTON

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,832,705

Exercised Options: $21,832,705

Current Obligation: $21,832,705

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911QX10D0010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline