Transportation awards $10.2M contract for ALSF-2 system monitoring, a sole-source award to Panoramax Corp

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,189,253 ($10.2M)

Contractor: NEW Bedford Panoramex Corp.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2005-08-30

End Date: 2011-06-30

Contract Duration: 2,130 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CONSTANT CURRENT REGULATOR (CCR) AND REPLACEMENT LAMP MONITORING SYSTEM (RLMS) FOR ALSF-2 SYSTEMS.

Place of Performance

Location: UPLAND, SAN BERNARDINO County, CALIFORNIA, 91786

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $10.2 million to NEW BEDFORD PANORAMEX CORP. for work described as: CONSTANT CURRENT REGULATOR (CCR) AND REPLACEMENT LAMP MONITORING SYSTEM (RLMS) FOR ALSF-2 SYSTEMS. Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in maintaining critical aviation safety infrastructure. 2. Sole-source awards warrant scrutiny to ensure fair pricing and necessity. 3. The duration of the contract (over 5 years) suggests a long-term need for these specialized services. 4. The specific nature of the ALSF-2 system implies a niche market with potentially limited competition. 5. Performance context is crucial given the safety-critical nature of airport lighting systems.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Without comparable contract data or detailed cost breakdowns, assessing the value-for-money is challenging. The fixed-price nature of the award provides some cost certainty, but the lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing. Benchmarking against similar specialized electronic system maintenance contracts would be necessary for a more definitive assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities or when urgency precludes a competitive process. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the best possible price and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. It also limits opportunities for other qualified businesses to secure government contracts.

Public Impact

Aviation safety is enhanced through the reliable operation of ALSF-2 lighting systems at airports. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) benefits from ensuring the functionality of critical navigation and landing aids. Air travelers and pilots benefit indirectly from improved safety and operational reliability at airports. The contract supports specialized technical services related to airport infrastructure maintenance.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition for a significant contract value.
Potential for inflated pricing due to sole-source award.
Limited transparency into the justification for sole-source procurement.

Positive Signals

Contract addresses a critical safety-related system (ALSF-2).
Fixed-price contract type offers some cost predictability.
Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing need.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense electronics sector, specifically focusing on aviation infrastructure maintenance. The market for specialized airport lighting system components and maintenance is likely concentrated among a few key providers due to the technical expertise and certifications required. Spending in this niche is driven by regulatory requirements for airport safety and modernization.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides. As a sole-source award to a specific entity, it is unlikely to have subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages them. This contract does not appear to directly support the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the Federal Aviation Administration contracting officers and program managers. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, with justifications for this procurement method needing to be publicly accessible. Inspector General involvement would be triggered by specific allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Airport Improvement Program
Federal Aviation Administration Operations
Air Traffic Control Systems

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for cost overruns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $10.2 million to NEW BEDFORD PANORAMEX CORP.. CONSTANT CURRENT REGULATOR (CCR) AND REPLACEMENT LAMP MONITORING SYSTEM (RLMS) FOR ALSF-2 SYSTEMS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NEW BEDFORD PANORAMEX CORP..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-08-30. End: 2011-06-30.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to New Bedford Panoramax Corp.?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and awarded as a 'SOLE SOURCE'. A detailed justification for this sole-source award would typically be documented by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6. This justification would likely cite unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or the lack of other responsible sources capable of meeting the government's requirements for the Constant Current Regulator (CCR) and Replacement Lamp Monitoring System (RLMS) for ALSF-2 systems. Without access to the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), the specific reasons remain unknown, but common justifications include essential unique technical expertise, compatibility with existing systems, or urgent and compelling needs that preclude full and open competition.

How does the contract value of approximately $10.2 million compare to similar contracts for aviation lighting system maintenance?

Direct comparison is difficult without specific data on similar contracts. However, $10.2 million over a period of approximately 5 years and 10 months (August 2005 to June 2011) suggests an average annual expenditure of roughly $1.75 million. This figure needs to be contextualized by the complexity and criticality of the ALSF-2 systems, which are essential for safe landings in low-visibility conditions. The sole-source nature of this award means that this price was not validated through market competition, making it harder to definitively state if it represents good or poor value compared to what might have been achieved through a competitive bidding process. Further analysis would require benchmarking against contracts for maintenance of similar specialized electronic systems within the aviation sector.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude is the potential for inflated pricing. Without competitive pressure, the contractor may not have the same incentive to offer the most cost-effective solution. Another risk is a lack of innovation, as there is no external competition driving the contractor to improve services or technology. Furthermore, sole-source awards can create a dependency on a single vendor, which can be problematic if that vendor experiences financial difficulties, changes its business strategy, or fails to perform adequately. Ensuring robust oversight and performance management becomes even more critical in sole-source situations to mitigate these risks.

What is the historical spending pattern for the Constant Current Regulator (CCR) and Replacement Lamp Monitoring System (RLMS) for ALSF-2 systems?

The provided data reflects a single definitive contract awarded in 2005 for $10.2 million, ending in 2011. This suggests that this specific contract represents a significant portion of the government's spending on this particular system during that period. To understand broader historical spending patterns, one would need to examine contract databases for previous awards related to ALSF-2 systems or similar monitoring systems, as well as any subsequent contracts awarded after 2011. Without this broader historical context, it's difficult to determine if this $10.2 million award was an anomaly, a typical expenditure, or part of a larger, ongoing investment in these systems.

What is the track record of New Bedford Panoramax Corp. with the Federal Aviation Administration or similar agencies?

The provided data identifies New Bedford Panoramax Corp. as the contractor for this specific $10.2 million sole-source award. To assess their track record, one would need to search federal contract databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) for other contracts awarded to this company, particularly by the FAA or other agencies involved in aviation infrastructure. Information such as past performance ratings, contract modifications, and any history of disputes or contract terminations would be crucial. Without this additional data, it is impossible to evaluate the company's broader performance history beyond this single contract.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Building Equipment Contractors › Electrical Contractors and Other Wiring Installation Contractors

Product/Service Code: ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC EQPT COMPNTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1037 W 9TH ST, UPLAND, CA, 91786

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,745,287

Exercised Options: $10,189,253

Current Obligation: $10,189,253

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline