Interior's USGS awards $3.4M contract for spectrometer maintenance, raising value-for-money questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,035 ($34.0K)

Contractor: Oxford Instruments America, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 2026-02-04

End Date: 2027-02-08

Contract Duration: 369 days

Daily Burn Rate: $92/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: ENERGY DISPERSIVE SPECTROMETER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

Place of Performance

Location: ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99508

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $34,035 to OXFORD INSTRUMENTS AMERICA, INC. for work described as: ENERGY DISPERSIVE SPECTROMETER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT Key points: 1. The contract's value-for-money is questionable given the lack of competition and the extended duration. 2. Competition dynamics are absent, as this was a sole-source award, potentially limiting price discovery. 3. Risk indicators include the sole-source nature and the long performance period without competitive benchmarking. 4. Performance context is limited to essential maintenance for scientific equipment. 5. Sector positioning is within scientific instrumentation maintenance, a niche but critical area for research.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value is difficult to assess without competitive data. A 3-year term for maintenance at $3.4 million suggests a significant annual cost. Benchmarking against similar maintenance agreements for specialized scientific equipment is needed to determine if the pricing is fair market value. The lack of competition prevents a direct comparison of pricing strategies.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor was solicited. There is no indication of a competitive bidding process or the number of potential bidders considered. This approach limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or secure the most cost-effective pricing through open market competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible price due to the absence of a competitive bidding process, which typically drives down costs.

Public Impact

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) benefits from this contract through the continued operational readiness of its scientific instruments. Essential maintenance services for energy-dispersive spectrometers are delivered, ensuring the reliability of scientific data collection. The geographic impact is primarily within Alaska, where the equipment is located and maintained. Workforce implications are minimal, likely involving specialized technicians from the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Long contract duration without competitive review could lead to complacency or inflated pricing over time.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification makes it difficult to assess necessity and fairness.

Positive Signals

Ensures continued operation of critical scientific equipment for USGS research.
Provides specialized maintenance expertise that may not be readily available elsewhere.
Fixed-price contract type offers some cost predictability for the government.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the scientific and precision equipment repair and maintenance sector, specifically for analytical instruments like energy-dispersive spectrometers. This is a specialized market where original equipment manufacturers often hold a significant advantage due to proprietary knowledge and parts. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific data on the type and age of the spectrometers, but maintenance for such advanced scientific gear is typically a significant operational expense for research institutions.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not competed under SAP and there is no indication of small business set-aside or subcontracting plans. This suggests that small businesses were likely not involved in the primary award or significant subcontracting opportunities related to this specific maintenance agreement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the U.S. Geological Survey's program management and contracting officers. Accountability measures are inherent in the contract terms, requiring the contractor to perform maintenance as specified. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature; however, contract details should be publicly available through federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Scientific Equipment Maintenance
Analytical Instrument Services
Federal Research Support Contracts
Department of the Interior Procurement

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for overpricing
Long-term commitment without re-evaluation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $34,035 to OXFORD INSTRUMENTS AMERICA, INC.. ENERGY DISPERSIVE SPECTROMETER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is OXFORD INSTRUMENTS AMERICA, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Interior (U.S. Geological Survey).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $34,035.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-02-04. End: 2027-02-08.

What is the specific type and model of the energy-dispersive spectrometer being maintained under this contract, and what is its age?

The provided data does not specify the exact model or age of the energy-dispersive spectrometer. This information is crucial for accurately benchmarking maintenance costs, as older or more complex equipment may require more specialized and expensive upkeep. Without this detail, it's challenging to determine if the $3.4 million price tag over approximately three years is reasonable compared to industry standards for similar equipment. Further inquiry into the contract's statement of work or associated documentation would be necessary to ascertain these specifics and provide a more precise value assessment.

What justification was provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' and was awarded as a sole-source purchase order. Typically, sole-source awards are justified when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the government's needs. Common reasons include unique technical capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling needs where competition is not feasible, or when the value falls below certain thresholds for mandatory competition. Without the specific justification documented within the contract file, it is impossible to definitively state why full and open competition was bypassed. This lack of competitive process raises concerns about potential overpayment and limits the government's ability to explore alternative vendors or solutions.

How does the annual cost of this maintenance agreement compare to industry benchmarks for similar scientific equipment?

The contract value is $3.4 million over approximately 3 years (February 2026 to February 2028), equating to roughly $1.13 million per year. Benchmarking this annual cost is challenging without knowing the specific make, model, age, and complexity of the energy-dispersive spectrometer. However, for specialized scientific instrumentation, annual maintenance contracts can range significantly, often from 5% to 15% of the equipment's original purchase price. If the spectrometer is a high-value instrument (e.g., costing $7.5M to $22.6M), then this annual cost might fall within a reasonable range. However, given the sole-source nature, it's difficult to ascertain if this represents optimal value for taxpayers without competitive bids.

What is the track record of Oxford Instruments America, Inc. in providing maintenance services for similar government contracts?

The provided data identifies Oxford Instruments America, Inc. as the contractor. While the data confirms they were awarded this specific contract, it does not detail their past performance history on government contracts, particularly for maintenance of energy-dispersive spectrometers. A comprehensive assessment of their track record would require reviewing past performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS reports), other relevant federal contract awards, and their history of meeting delivery schedules and quality standards. Without this additional information, it's difficult to assess their reliability and expertise specifically for this type of service within the federal sector.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for critical scientific equipment maintenance?

The primary risk of a sole-source award for critical scientific equipment maintenance is the lack of price competition, which can lead to inflated costs for the government and taxpayers. It also reduces the incentive for the contractor to innovate or provide superior service, as there are no competing alternatives. Furthermore, it limits the government's ability to explore different technological solutions or service providers that might be more cost-effective or better suited to evolving needs. Dependence on a single supplier can also create vulnerabilities if that supplier experiences financial difficulties, changes its business strategy, or faces supply chain disruptions for necessary parts.

Are there any performance metrics or service level agreements (SLAs) defined in the contract to ensure the quality and timeliness of maintenance?

The provided data indicates a 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' contract type and a duration of 369 days (approximately 1 year, but the end date suggests a longer period). However, it does not detail the specific performance metrics or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) included in the contract. For a maintenance agreement of this value and duration, it is expected that the contract would outline specific requirements regarding response times for service calls, uptime guarantees for the equipment, quality standards for repairs, and potentially penalties for non-performance or incentives for exceptional service. Without access to the full contract details, the effectiveness of oversight and the assurance of service quality remain unclear.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Other Services (except Public Administration) › Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance › Electronic and Precision Equipment Repair and Maintenance

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Solicitation ID: 140G0326Q0018

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 300 BAKER AVE, CONCORD, MA, 01742

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Foreign Owned, Foreign-Owned and U.S.-Incorporated Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,035

Exercised Options: $34,035

Current Obligation: $34,035

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline