DoD awards $196.6M for Chemical Analysis Instruments, raising concerns about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $49,668,132 ($49.7M)

Contractor: Technical Products Group Incorporated

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-07-08

End Date: 2004-12-30

Contract Duration: 906 days

Daily Burn Rate: $54.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200210!000731!2100!AD13 !USA MATERIEL COMMAND ACQUISITION!DAAD1302C0010 !A!N! !N!PZ0006 !20020708!20030630!196587547!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !2000 BRUNSWICK LN !DELAND !FL!32724!16875!127!12!DE LAND !VOLUSIA !FLORIDA !+000043478052!N!N!000000000000!6630!CHEMICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUMENTS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !334516!E! !3! ! !J! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!U!J!1!001!N!2A!Z!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! !Y! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: CHARLOTTE, MECKLENBURG County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28273, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $49.7 million to TECHNICAL PRODUCTS GROUP INCORPORATED for work described as: 200210!000731!2100!AD13 !USA MATERIEL COMMAND ACQUISITION!DAAD1302C0010 !A!N! !N!PZ0006 !20020708!20030630!196587547!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !2000 BRUNSWICK LN !DELAND !FL!32724!16875!127!12!DE LAND !VOLUS… Key points: 1. The contract for chemical analysis instruments was awarded to GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND for $196.6 million. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about price discovery and potential overpayment. 3. The duration of the contract is 906 days, with a significant portion of the value awarded early. 4. The sector is IT/Defense, with a specific focus on analytical laboratory instrument manufacturing.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $196.6 million for chemical analysis instruments appears high given the lack of competition. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark pricing against similar contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning there was no competition. This significantly limits price discovery and may lead to inflated costs for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition suggests taxpayers may have paid a premium for these instruments, as there was no market pressure to drive down prices.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may have overpaid due to the sole-source award. The Department of Defense may not have received the best available technology or pricing. Limited transparency in the procurement process hinders public understanding of the value received.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of price competition
Potential for overpayment

Positive Signals

Specific product category identified
Contract awarded to a known entity

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically for analytical laboratory instrument manufacturing. Spending benchmarks in this niche area are difficult to ascertain without competitive data, but large sole-source awards warrant scrutiny.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that small businesses were involved in this sole-source contract, nor is there any information suggesting efforts to include them in future procurements.

Oversight & Accountability

The sole-source nature of this award raises questions about the effectiveness of oversight in ensuring competitive pricing and value for taxpayer money. Further review is needed to understand why competition was excluded.

Related Government Programs

Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition.
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition.
Limited transparency in the procurement process.
Unclear justification for sole-source award.
Potential for suboptimal value for taxpayer money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $49.7 million to TECHNICAL PRODUCTS GROUP INCORPORATED. 200210!000731!2100!AD13 !USA MATERIEL COMMAND ACQUISITION!DAAD1302C0010 !A!N! !N!PZ0006 !20020708!20030630!196587547!003567125!001381284!N!GENERAL DYNAMICS ARMAMENT AND !2000 BRUNSWICK LN !DELAND !FL!32724!16875!127!12!DE LAND !VOLUSIA !FLORIDA !+000043478052!N!N!000000000000!6630!CHEMICAL ANALYSIS INSTRUMENTS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !334516!E! !3! ! !J! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TECHNICAL PRODUCTS GROUP INCORPORATED.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $49.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-07-08. End: 2004-12-30.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were alternative competitive strategies explored?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A thorough review would require access to the contract file to understand the specific justification, such as a critical need, lack of qualified sources, or national security concerns. Without this information, it's impossible to assess if alternative competitive strategies were adequately explored or if the sole-source decision was fully warranted.

How does the unit cost of these chemical analysis instruments compare to similar instruments procured competitively by other government agencies or the private sector?

Direct comparison is challenging without specific unit cost data and detailed specifications for the instruments. However, the absence of competition inherently limits the ability to establish a reliable benchmark. If the government paid significantly more than market rates for comparable, non-proprietary instruments, it would indicate a potential loss of value for taxpayer funds.

What measures are in place to ensure the effectiveness and performance of the chemical analysis instruments procured under this sole-source contract?

Effectiveness is typically ensured through contract clauses related to performance standards, acceptance testing, and warranties. Given the sole-source nature, rigorous acceptance criteria and post-delivery performance monitoring by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) would be crucial. However, the lack of competition means the initial price may not reflect optimal value, potentially impacting the overall effectiveness of the investment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Analytical Laboratory Instrument Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: INSTRUMENTS AND LABORATORY EQPT

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

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 2000 BRUNSWICK LN, DELAND, FL, 32724

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline