DoD Awards $1.55M for Communication Equipment, Raising Questions on Value and Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,929,339 ($9.9M)

Contractor: Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-03-23

End Date: 2008-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,195 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: 200506!003064!2100!W15P7T!USA COMMUNICATIONS-ELECTRONICS !DAAB0797DL023 !A!N! !N!0062 ! !20050323!20070630!015548597!015548597!933503385!N!LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC !5440 MILLSTREAM ROAD !MCLEANSVILLE !NC!27301!00000! !GM!* !* !GERMANY !+000009032422!N!N!000000000000!5895!MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIP !000 !* !334220!E! !5!B!M! !A! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!N!J!2!011!B! !Z!N!Z! ! !Y!M!N! ! ! ! ! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $9.9 million to ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC. for work described as: 200506!003064!2100!W15P7T!USA COMMUNICATIONS-ELECTRONICS !DAAB0797DL023 !A!N! !N!0062 ! !20050323!20070630!015548597!015548597!933503385!N!LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC !5440 MILLSTREAM ROAD !MCLEANSVILLE !NC!27301!00000! !GM!* !* … Key points: 1. The contract for communication equipment was awarded to Lucent Technologies Inc. for $1,554,859.70. 2. The award was made under full and open competition, but the specific pricing strategy and its impact on value are unclear. 3. The duration of the contract was 1195 days, suggesting a long-term need for the equipment. 4. The sector is IT/Electronics, with a specific NAICS code of 334210 (Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing).

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $1,554,859.70 for communication equipment over approximately 3.3 years appears high without further context on the specific items procured. Benchmarking against similar contracts is difficult without detailed specifications.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which theoretically allows for the best price discovery. However, the lack of detailed pricing information makes it difficult to assess if the competition effectively drove down costs.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayer funds were used for this procurement. While competition was utilized, the ultimate value for money is not immediately apparent, potentially impacting the efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Public Impact

This contract supports the Department of Defense's communication infrastructure, crucial for national security operations. The procurement of specialized communication equipment highlights the ongoing need for advanced technology in military operations. The award to a single vendor, despite full and open competition, may warrant further investigation into the bidding process and final pricing.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Lack of detailed pricing justification
  • Potential for overpricing given contract duration
  • Limited transparency on specific equipment procured

Positive Signals

  • Awarded under full and open competition
  • Supports critical defense communications

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology and Electronics sector, specifically related to communication equipment manufacturing. The benchmark for similar procurements can vary widely based on technological sophistication and quantity.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication in the provided data that small businesses were involved in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine any potential impact or opportunities for small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

The Department of Defense is responsible for oversight of this contract. The data suggests a standard procurement process was followed, but the effectiveness of oversight in ensuring optimal value for money is not detailed.

Related Government Programs

  • Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing
  • Department of Defense Contracting
  • Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

  • Lack of detailed product specifications
  • Ambiguity in pricing justification
  • Potential for technology obsolescence
  • Limited insight into competitive bidding outcomes

Tags

telephone-apparatus-manufacturing, department-of-defense, do, 1m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $9.9 million to ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.. 200506!003064!2100!W15P7T!USA COMMUNICATIONS-ELECTRONICS !DAAB0797DL023 !A!N! !N!0062 ! !20050323!20070630!015548597!015548597!933503385!N!LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC !5440 MILLSTREAM ROAD !MCLEANSVILLE !NC!27301!00000! !GM!* !* !GERMANY !+000009032422!N!N!000000000000!5895!MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIP !000 !* !334220!E! !5!B!M! !A! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALCATEL-LUCENT USA 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 $9.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-03-23. End: 2008-06-30.

What specific communication equipment was procured under this contract, and what were the unit costs?

The provided data identifies the product as 'MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT' under NAICS code 334210. However, specific item details and unit costs are not available. This lack of specificity makes it challenging to assess the value proposition and compare pricing against market rates or similar government contracts.

How did the 'full and open competition' process ensure the best possible price for this $1.55 million contract?

While the contract states 'full and open competition,' the data does not provide details on the number of bids received, the evaluation criteria, or the negotiation process. Without this information, it's impossible to definitively assess if the competition effectively drove down prices or if there were factors that limited true price discovery.

What is the expected operational lifespan and technological relevance of the 'miscellaneous communication equipment' procured, given the contract's duration?

The contract spanned from March 2005 to June 2008 (1195 days). The term 'miscellaneous communication equipment' is broad. Without knowing the specific technology, it's difficult to assess its long-term relevance and whether it became obsolete quickly, impacting the overall value and effectiveness of the investment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ManufacturingCommunications Equipment ManufacturingTelephone Apparatus Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 11

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Alcatel Lucent (UEI: 275127975)

Address: 5440 MILLSTREAM RD STE RE2P18, MC LEANSVILLE, NC, 09

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DAAB0797DL023

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-03-23

Current End Date: 2008-06-30

Potential End Date: 2008-12-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2008-06-06

More Contracts from Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.

View all Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending