DoD awards $19.8M for Navigational Instruments, raising concerns about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,843,843 ($19.8M)

Contractor: Astronautics Corporation of America

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-09-30

End Date: 2010-10-01

Contract Duration: 2,192 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200412!001034!5700!GD50 !OKLAHOMA CITY ALC/LID !FA810304C0160 !A!N! !N! ! !20040930!20060831!006095921!006095921!006095921!N!ASTRONAUTICS CORPORATION OF AM!4115 N TEUTONIA AVE !MILWAUKEE !WI!53209!53000!079!55!MILWAUKEE !MILWAUKEE !WISCONSIN !+000018807177!N!N!000018807177!6605!NAVIGATIONAL INSTRUMENTS !A1C!OTHER AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT !000 !* !336413!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B!D!N!A! !D!U!J!1!001!N!1A!A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: MILWAUKEE, MILWAUKEE County, WISCONSIN, 53209

State: Wisconsin Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.8 million to ASTRONAUTICS CORPORATION OF AMERICA for work described as: 200412!001034!5700!GD50 !OKLAHOMA CITY ALC/LID !FA810304C0160 !A!N! !N! ! !20040930!20060831!006095921!006095921!006095921!N!ASTRONAUTICS CORPORATION OF AM!4115 N TEUTONIA AVE !MILWAUKEE !WI!53209!53000!079!55!MILWAUKEE !MILW… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for navigational instruments to Astronautics Corporation of America. 2. Significant spending on a single contract raises questions about market competition. 3. The contract's fixed-price nature may limit risk for the contractor but not necessarily ensure best value. 4. Sector context suggests potential for competitive bidding in aircraft equipment.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $19.8M for navigational instruments appears high, especially given the lack of competitive bidding. Benchmarking against similar contracts for specialized aircraft equipment is difficult without more data, but the absence of competition suggests potential overpricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, indicating a lack of competition. This method limits price discovery and may lead to higher costs for the government compared to a competitive procurement.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition and potential for overpricing directly impacts taxpayer funds, as a more competitive process could have secured a lower price.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for critical navigational equipment due to a lack of competitive bidding. The sole-source award could stifle innovation by not encouraging other companies to enter the market. Dependence on a single supplier for essential aircraft components poses a long-term risk.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for overpricing
Long contract duration

Positive Signals

Firm fixed price contract
Contractor has experience in the field

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense sector, particularly for aircraft equipment, often involves complex and specialized components. While some items are unique, many components like navigational instruments can be sourced competitively, making a sole-source award for this category noteworthy.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication in the data whether small businesses were involved in this sole-source contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Further investigation would be needed to assess small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The sole-source nature of this award warrants scrutiny from oversight bodies to ensure the government received fair value and that the justification for not competing was sound.

Related Government Programs

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competitive bidding
Potential for inflated pricing
Limited transparency in award justification
Risk of vendor lock-in
Questionable value for taxpayer money

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.8 million to ASTRONAUTICS CORPORATION OF AMERICA. 200412!001034!5700!GD50 !OKLAHOMA CITY ALC/LID !FA810304C0160 !A!N! !N! ! !20040930!20060831!006095921!006095921!006095921!N!ASTRONAUTICS CORPORATION OF AM!4115 N TEUTONIA AVE !MILWAUKEE !WI!53209!53000!079!55!MILWAUKEE !MILWAUKEE !WISCONSIN !+000018807177!N!N!000018807177!6605!NAVIGATIONAL INSTRUMENTS !A1C!OTHER AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT !000 !* !336413!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASTRONAUTICS CORPORATION OF AMERICA.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $19.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-09-30. End: 2010-10-01.

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

The justification for a sole-source award typically involves unique capabilities, urgent needs, or lack of viable alternatives. Without specific documentation, it's impossible to confirm the exact reason. However, for navigational instruments, it's unusual not to have competitive options. Agencies should rigorously explore all possibilities for competition before resorting to sole-source procurement to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently.

How does the per-unit cost of these navigational instruments compare to industry benchmarks or previous similar procurements?

Benchmarking the per-unit cost is crucial for assessing value. Given this was a sole-source award, direct comparison is difficult. However, the contracting agency should have conducted an independent cost analysis or relied on historical pricing data for similar components. If such analysis indicates costs significantly above market rates, it points to a potential issue with the pricing and the effectiveness of the procurement strategy.

What is the long-term strategy for ensuring competitive sourcing of navigational instruments beyond this contract's expiration?

A sole-source award for a potentially competitive item like navigational instruments raises concerns about future sourcing. The agency should be developing a strategy to foster competition for subsequent contracts. This might involve market research, encouraging new entrants, or breaking down the requirement into smaller, more competitive packages to ensure better value and innovation over time.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: INSTRUMENTS AND LABORATORY EQPT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 4115 N TEUTONIA AVE, MILWAUKEE, WI, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline