DoD's $19.4M Contract for Communications Equipment: Long Duration, Limited Competition Raises Concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,411,895 ($19.4M)

Contractor: Continental Electronics, a DIV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-10-08

End Date: 2011-03-31

Contract Duration: 3,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Place of Performance

Location: DALLAS, DALLAS County, TEXAS, 75227

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.4 million to CONTINENTAL ELECTRONICS, A DIV for work described as: Key points: 1. Significant spending of $19.4 million on communications equipment. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for higher costs and reduced innovation. 3. Long contract duration (over 10 years) may not reflect current technological needs. 4. Sector context: Defense spending on specialized equipment is common, but oversight is crucial.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $19.4 million over 10 years is substantial. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to assess if this price is fair market value compared to similar communications equipment contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was not competed, indicating a limited competition approach. This lack of competition can hinder price discovery and potentially lead to less favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of full and open competition on a nearly $20 million contract may result in taxpayers paying more than necessary for the acquired equipment.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may have overpaid due to the lack of competitive bidding. The extended contract period could mean the government is using outdated technology. Potential for reduced innovation in communications equipment due to limited market engagement.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Lack of Competition
  • Long Contract Duration
  • Potential for Overpricing

Positive Signals

  • Specific equipment procured for defense needs

Sector Analysis

The Department of Defense frequently procures specialized communications equipment. Benchmarks for similar contracts are hard to establish without competitive data, but long-term, non-competed awards warrant scrutiny.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that small businesses were involved in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' status suggests a potential gap in oversight regarding the justification for not seeking competitive bids. Accountability for ensuring best value for taxpayer dollars is paramount.

Related Government Programs

  • Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing
  • Department of Defense Contracting
  • Department of the Air Force Programs

Risk Flags

  • Lack of Competition
  • Potential for Overpricing
  • Extended Contract Duration
  • Lack of Small Business Participation

Tags

other-communications-equipment-manufactu, department-of-defense, tx, dca, 10m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.4 million to CONTINENTAL ELECTRONICS, A DIV. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CONTINENTAL ELECTRONICS, A DIV.

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 $19.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-10-08. End: 2011-03-31.

What was the specific justification for not competing this contract, and was it adequately documented?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A thorough review of the contract file would be necessary to ascertain the specific justification, such as a sole-source provider or urgent need. Adequate documentation is crucial for accountability and to ensure the government obtained the best possible value under the circumstances.

How does the performance and technological relevance of the procured equipment compare to current market offerings?

Given the contract's start date in 2000 and end date in 2011, the procured equipment is likely outdated. Assessing its current performance and technological relevance against contemporary market offerings would reveal potential inefficiencies and the need for upgrades, impacting overall value.

What was the process for determining the 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' without competitive bids?

Determining a 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' without competition typically involves cost analysis, historical pricing data, or negotiation with the sole/limited source provider. The government should have conducted a price reasonableness check to ensure the fixed price was fair, even without competing offers.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ManufacturingCommunications Equipment ManufacturingOther Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC EQPT COMPNTS

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

Address: 4212 SOUTH BUCKNER BLVD, DALLAS, TX, 90

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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline

Start Date: 2000-10-08

Current End Date: 2011-03-31

Potential End Date: 2011-03-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2011-06-06

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending