Raytheon Awarded $808.5M for Defense Applied Research, Facing Limited Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,301,770 ($12.3M)

Contractor: Hughes Training, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-02-28

End Date: 2004-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,249 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: 200105!000079!5700!GW03 !HSW/PKR !F4162497D5000 !A!N!*!N!0017 !20010228!20040731!808514947!056546583!001339159!N!RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES CO!2116 ARLINGTON DOWNS ROAD !ARLINGTON !TX!76011!46000!013!04!MESA !MARICOPA !ARIZONA !+000000925000!N!N!000000000000!AD92!RDTE/OTHER DEFENSE-APPLIED RESEARCH !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541710!*!*!5!B!S! !*!*!*!B!*!*!B! !A !N!U!2!001!B! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !C!C!A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 90071

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.3 million to HUGHES TRAINING, INC for work described as: 200105!000079!5700!GW03 !HSW/PKR !F4162497D5000 !A!N!*!N!0017 !20010228!20040731!808514947!056546583!001339159!N!RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES CO!2116 ARLINGTON DOWNS ROAD !ARLINGTON !TX!76011!46000!013!04!MESA !MARIC… Key points: 1. The contract, valued at $808.5 million, is for Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. 2. Competition was limited, raising questions about price discovery and potential taxpayer impact. 3. The award to Raytheon Technical Services Co. represents a significant investment in defense R&D. 4. Sector context suggests substantial government spending in this area, with potential for cost overruns.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $808.5 million for a 1249-day duration appears high, especially given the limited competition. Benchmarking against similar R&D contracts is difficult without more specific cost breakdowns.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under limited competition, which can lead to higher prices than if full and open competition were pursued. The specific reasons for limited competition are not detailed, impacting the ability to assess price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price, potentially leading to increased taxpayer burden.

Public Impact

Significant taxpayer funds allocated to defense research and development. Potential for advanced technological development with dual-use applications. Contract duration of over three years suggests a long-term commitment to the project.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Limited competition
  • Cost-plus contract type
  • Lack of detailed cost breakdown

Positive Signals

  • Award to established defense contractor
  • Focus on critical R&D area

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically defense-applied research. Government spending in this area is substantial, often characterized by complex contracts and evolving technological requirements.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that small businesses were involved in this specific contract award. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were made available.

Oversight & Accountability

The limited competition and cost-plus contract type warrant close oversight to ensure cost efficiency and prevent potential overruns. Accountability for research outcomes and adherence to budget are crucial.

Related Government Programs

  • Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
  • Department of Defense Contracting
  • Department of the Air Force Programs

Risk Flags

  • Limited competition may lead to higher costs.
  • Cost-plus contract type increases government financial risk.
  • Lack of specific R&D deliverables makes effectiveness assessment difficult.
  • Potential for cost overruns due to R&D complexity.

Tags

research-and-development-in-the-physical, department-of-defense, ca, do, 10m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.3 million to HUGHES TRAINING, INC. 200105!000079!5700!GW03 !HSW/PKR !F4162497D5000 !A!N!*!N!0017 !20010228!20040731!808514947!056546583!001339159!N!RAYTHEON TECHNICAL SERVICES CO!2116 ARLINGTON DOWNS ROAD !ARLINGTON !TX!76011!46000!013!04!MESA !MARICOPA !ARIZONA !+000000925000!N!N!000000000000!AD92!RDTE/OTHER DEFENSE-APPLIED RESEARCH !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541710!*!*!5!B!S! !*!*!*!B!*!*!B!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HUGHES TRAINING, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-02-28. End: 2004-07-31.

What specific factors justified the limited competition for this significant R&D contract?

The data provided does not specify the reasons for limited competition. Typically, justifications include unique capabilities, urgent needs, or proprietary technologies. Without this information, it's difficult to assess if the limited competition was truly warranted or if it potentially inflated costs for the taxpayer.

How does the cost-plus fixed fee structure impact the risk and potential for cost overruns in this R&D contract?

A Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. While it incentivizes the contractor to control costs to maximize their fee, it shifts much of the cost risk to the government, especially in R&D where outcomes and costs can be unpredictable. This structure necessitates robust government oversight to manage expenditures effectively.

What are the expected technological advancements or deliverables from this $808.5 million R&D investment?

The contract description 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences' and the PSC code '541710' are broad. Specific deliverables or technological advancements are not detailed in the provided data. Understanding the precise objectives of the R&D is essential to evaluate the effectiveness and ultimate value of this substantial investment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesScientific Research and Development ServicesResearch and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTDEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: LUKE A FRCE BASE BLDG 616, GLENDALE, AZ, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: F4162497D5000

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2001-02-28

Current End Date: 2004-07-31

Potential End Date: 2004-07-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2010-10-12

More Contracts from Hughes Training, Inc

View all Hughes Training, Inc federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending