DoD's $16.5M contract for hand-held signals awarded to Security Signals, Inc. under full and open competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $16,546,851 ($16.5M)
Contractor: Security Signals, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2008-03-31
End Date: 2010-08-31
Contract Duration: 883 days
Daily Burn Rate: $18.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: VARIOUS HAND HELD SIGNALS
Place of Performance
Location: CORDOVA, SHELBY County, TENNESSEE, 38016
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $16.5 million to SECURITY SIGNALS, INC. for work described as: VARIOUS HAND HELD SIGNALS Key points: 1. Contract awarded for miscellaneous chemical products, specifically hand-held signals. 2. Security Signals, Inc. secured the contract valued at approximately $16.5 million. 3. The contract was awarded under a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' clause. 4. Performance period spans from March 2008 to August 2010. 5. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, indicating predictable costs for the government. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Army, a component of the DoD. 7. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 325998 for chemical product manufacturing.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $16.5 million for hand-held signals over a period of approximately 2.5 years appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized defense supplies. Without specific per-unit cost data or direct comparisons to similar, recent contracts for identical or highly comparable items, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty for the government. Further benchmarking against commercial equivalents or historical pricing for similar signal devices would be necessary for a more definitive evaluation.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This specific procurement method suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, there might have been initial exclusions or specific requirements that limited the pool of eligible bidders. The presence of two bidders indicates some level of competition, but the 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation into why certain potential sources were not considered or allowed to bid.
Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition, even under a 'full and open' umbrella with exclusions, may have resulted in less aggressive pricing than a truly unrestricted full and open competition. Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the narrowed bidder pool.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and specifically the Department of the Army, who will receive the hand-held signals for operational use. The services delivered involve the manufacturing and supply of specialized signaling devices, crucial for military communication and signaling in various operational environments. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around military installations where these signals are deployed or stored, with potential use in global operations. Workforce implications include jobs in the chemical manufacturing sector, specifically related to the production of signaling devices, supporting Security Signals, Inc.'s operations.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type raises questions about the breadth of the initial bidding process and potential missed opportunities for cost savings.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics or quality assurance data makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness and reliability of the delivered signals.
- The contract duration of over two years without clear options for extension could lead to future procurement disruptions or price increases if demand continues.
Positive Signals
- The contract was awarded under a 'full and open competition' framework, suggesting an effort to solicit bids from a wide range of qualified vendors.
- The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type provides cost predictability for the government, minimizing the risk of cost overruns.
- The award to a single contractor, Security Signals, Inc., indicates they met the technical and capability requirements specified in the solicitation.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing sector (NAICS 325998). This sector encompasses establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing chemical products not elsewhere classified, including signaling devices. The defense industry is a significant consumer of specialized chemical products for signaling, illumination, and pyrotechnics. The market size for such niche defense-related chemical manufacturing can be substantial, driven by ongoing military readiness and operational requirements. Benchmarking this contract's value against other DoD procurements for similar signaling or pyrotechnic devices would provide further context on its scale within the sector.
Small Business Impact
There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. The award was made to Security Signals, Inc., and without further information on the size of this company, it's difficult to definitively assess the impact on small businesses. If Security Signals, Inc. is a large business, the contract does not directly benefit small businesses through a set-aside. However, there could be subcontracting opportunities for small businesses if Security Signals, Inc. chooses to engage them for specific components or services, though this is not explicitly stated in the provided data.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the Firm Fixed Price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver specified goods within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS-NG. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected or reported.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Procurement
- Chemical Manufacturing Contracts
- Military Signaling Equipment
- Army Supply Contracts
- Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Procurement
Risk Flags
- Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics.
- Uncertainty regarding value for money without specific unit cost comparisons.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, chemical-manufacturing, signaling-devices, miscellaneous-chemical-products, tennessee, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $16.5 million to SECURITY SIGNALS, INC.. VARIOUS HAND HELD SIGNALS
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is SECURITY SIGNALS, 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 $16.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-03-31. End: 2010-08-31.
What is the specific type and purpose of the 'VARIOUS HAND HELD SIGNALS' procured under this contract?
The data indicates 'VARIOUS HAND HELD SIGNALS' were procured. While the exact specifications are not detailed, these likely refer to signaling devices used by military personnel for communication, marking, or illumination in tactical or operational environments. Examples could include flares, smoke signals, chemical light sticks, or other visual signaling devices designed for military-grade durability and performance. Their purpose is to convey information, indicate positions, or provide light under challenging conditions, supporting situational awareness and command and control.
How does the awarded price of $16.5 million compare to similar contracts for hand-held signals within the DoD?
A direct comparison of the $16.5 million total contract value to similar procurements is challenging without access to a comprehensive database of comparable contracts, including specific item details, quantities, and unit prices. However, given the contract duration of approximately 2.5 years (March 2008 - August 2010), the annual spending averaged around $6.6 million. This figure needs to be contextualized by the specific types and quantities of signals ordered. If these were high-volume, basic signaling devices, the price might be considered high. If they were specialized, advanced, or required unique military specifications, the price could be justified. Benchmarking against commercial off-the-shelf signaling devices would likely show a significant premium due to military requirements.
What were the specific reasons for 'exclusion of sources' in this 'full and open competition' award?
The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' designation implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential sources were explicitly excluded from bidding. The specific reasons for these exclusions are not provided in the summary data. Common justifications for excluding sources can include national security concerns, proprietary technology limitations, specific security clearances required, or unique manufacturing capabilities possessed by only a few entities. Without further documentation from the solicitation or award decision, the precise rationale remains unknown, but it suggests that not all interested parties were permitted to compete.
What is the track record of Security Signals, Inc. in fulfilling defense contracts, particularly for signaling devices?
The provided data indicates Security Signals, Inc. was awarded this $16.5 million contract. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their past performance on similar government contracts. This would involve looking at contract history, on-time delivery rates, quality of goods provided, and any past performance evaluations or disputes. A review of their contract portfolio, especially within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies, would reveal their experience and reliability in supplying defense-related products like signaling devices. Without this historical data, it's difficult to gauge their established performance.
What are the potential risks associated with a Firm Fixed Price contract for specialized chemical products?
While Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts offer cost certainty to the government, they can introduce risks for the contractor, especially with specialized chemical products where raw material costs or manufacturing complexities might fluctuate. If Security Signals, Inc. underestimated production costs or faced unforeseen issues with material sourcing or chemical processes, they could face reduced profit margins or even losses. Conversely, if the government underestimated the quantity needed or the specifications were highly precise, the contractor might deliver exactly what was specified but potentially at a price that reflects a higher risk premium built into the FFP. The risk of non-conforming product also exists, requiring robust quality assurance.
How does the $16.5 million spending on hand-held signals fit into the broader context of Department of the Army's procurement of signaling and communication equipment?
The $16.5 million awarded to Security Signals, Inc. represents a specific procurement within the vast landscape of the Department of the Army's spending on signaling and communication equipment. This category encompasses a wide array of technologies, from basic visual signals to complex electronic communication systems. While $16.5 million is a significant sum for a single contract, it is likely a fraction of the Army's total annual budget for communication and signaling assets. Its importance lies in providing essential, potentially life-saving, visual signaling capabilities. Understanding its place requires comparing it to the overall budget allocated for tactical communications and soldier-worn equipment.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing › All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 9509 MACON RD, CORDOVA, TN, 09
Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Woman Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $16,546,851
Exercised Options: $16,546,851
Current Obligation: $16,546,851
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W52P1J05D0040
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-03-31
Current End Date: 2010-08-31
Potential End Date: 2010-08-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-01-14
More Contracts from Security Signals, Inc.
- 200312!001613!2100!AA09 !U.S. Army Industrial Operations !daaa0903c0054 !A!N! !N! !20030905!20051230!007031479!007031479!007031479!n!security Signals Inc !9509 Macon RD !cordova !tn!38018!17100!157!47!cordova !shelby !tennessee !+000002468173!y!n!000000000000!1370!pyrotechnics !A6 !ammunition !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !325998!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!j!2!001!k! !A!N!Z! ! !n!b!y!n! ! !C! !B!A!* !A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $36.1M (Department of Defense)
- Various Hand Held Signals Awarded on Delivery Order 0013 — $28.7M (Department of Defense)
- 200206!000055!2100!AA09 !U.S. Army Industrial Operations !daaa0902c0003 !A!N! !N! !20011031!20030228!007031479!007031479!007031479!n!security Signals Inc !9509 Macon RD !cordova !tn!38018!17100!157!47!cordova !shelby !tennessee !+000000546803!y!n!000000000000!1370!pyrotechnics !A6 !ammunition !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !325998!A!A!3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!j!2!002!k! !A!N!A! ! !n!b!y!n! ! !C! !B!A!* !A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $15.2M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)