DoD's $10.3M R&D contract for radar demonstration phase awarded via sole-source justification

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,305,000 ($10.3M)

Contractor: Canadian Commercial Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-06-30

End Date: 2009-02-28

Contract Duration: 609 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: TANDEM MISSION WITH RADARSAT-2 DEMONSTRATION PHASE

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.3 million to CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION for work described as: TANDEM MISSION WITH RADARSAT-2 DEMONSTRATION PHASE Key points: 1. Contract awarded for a research and development initiative focused on radar technology demonstration. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential value for money. 3. A sole-source award suggests limited market availability or specific contractor expertise. 4. The contract duration of approximately 20 months indicates a focused, short-term research effort. 5. The firm fixed-price contract type aims to control costs for the government. 6. This award falls under the Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences category.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $10.3 million for a 20-month R&D demonstration phase is difficult to benchmark without specific technical details. However, the lack of competition means there was no direct price comparison to ensure optimal value. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the absence of competitive bidding prevents an assessment of whether the price reflects the best available market rate for similar research and development services.

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 potential vendors. The justification for this approach is not detailed in the provided data, but typically it implies that only one responsible source was available or that the unique nature of the requirement necessitated a specific contractor. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore a wider range of technical solutions and potentially negotiate more favorable pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not have received the best possible price due to the absence of competitive pressure. The sole-source award bypasses the market discovery process that competition provides, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple bids had been solicited.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense and its research arms, seeking to advance radar technology. The services delivered involve research and development activities for a radar demonstration phase. The geographic impact is primarily within the defense sector, with potential applications in national security. Workforce implications would involve specialized scientific and engineering personnel required for R&D.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have led to a higher price than a competed contract.
Sole-source awards can limit innovation by not exploring alternative solutions from other firms.
Transparency is reduced without a competitive bidding process to scrutinize.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarding to a specific entity suggests they possess unique or critical capabilities for this R&D.
The contract is for a defined R&D phase, indicating a focused objective.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical and engineering sciences. The market for advanced radar technology R&D is specialized, often involving a limited number of highly capable firms. Government spending in this area is crucial for maintaining technological superiority, but competitive procurement is generally preferred to ensure efficient use of taxpayer funds. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific technical details on the radar system being developed.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not competed and does not specify any small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting goals. Given the specialized nature of advanced R&D, it is less common for such contracts to be exclusively set aside for small businesses, though they may participate as subcontractors. The absence of explicit small business considerations in the award data suggests a limited direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver specific outcomes within the agreed budget. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, as the justification and evaluation process are not publicly detailed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Research and Development
Advanced Radar Systems
Aerospace Technology Research
Department of the Air Force Research Initiatives

Risk Flags

Sole-source award bypasses competitive process
Lack of transparency in justification for sole-source award
Potential for higher costs due to lack of competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.3 million to CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION. TANDEM MISSION WITH RADARSAT-2 DEMONSTRATION PHASE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION.

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 $10.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-06-30. End: 2009-02-28.

What specific radar technology was this contract intended to demonstrate, and what is the expected outcome?

The provided data identifies the contract as 'TANDEM MISSION WITH RADARSAT-2 DEMONSTRATION PHASE.' While the exact technical specifications of the radar technology are not detailed, the name suggests a demonstration phase related to a mission involving RADARSAT-2, a Canadian Earth observation satellite. The expected outcome would be the successful demonstration of the capabilities of a new or upgraded radar system, potentially for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), or other defense-related applications. The 'TANDEM MISSION' aspect implies a coordinated effort, possibly involving data fusion or complementary functionalities with RADARSAT-2's capabilities. Further details on the specific performance metrics and objectives would be found in the contract's SOW (Statement of Work).

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The data indicates the contract was awarded under 'NOT COMPETED' with a 'sole-source' justification. While the specific reason is not provided, common justifications for sole-source awards include: 1) Only one responsible source possesses the unique capability or technology required; 2) A critical urgency of need prevents competition; 3) A specific international agreement or treaty mandates a particular source; or 4) The acquisition is for R&D where a specific contractor's prior work or intellectual property is essential. For this contract, it is plausible that the contractor possessed unique expertise or technology related to the RADARSAT-2 mission or the specific radar demonstration required, making competition impractical or detrimental to the program's objectives.

How does the $10.3 million contract value compare to similar R&D efforts in radar technology?

Benchmarking the $10.3 million contract value for a 20-month R&D demonstration phase is challenging without detailed technical specifications and scope of work. However, research and development in advanced technologies like radar can be highly variable in cost. Contracts for similar phases could range from a few million to tens of millions of dollars, depending on the complexity, novelty, and scale of the demonstration. Given this was a sole-source award, a direct comparison to competitively bid contracts for similar services is not possible. The value should be assessed against the specific technical milestones and deliverables outlined in the contract's Statement of Work to determine if it represents fair and reasonable pricing for the unique capabilities being developed or demonstrated.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a sole-source R&D contract of this nature?

Sole-source R&D contracts carry several potential risks. Firstly, the absence of competition can lead to higher costs for the government, as there is no market pressure to drive down prices. Secondly, it may limit the government's access to a broader range of innovative solutions or alternative technical approaches that other firms might offer. Thirdly, transparency and public trust can be eroded if the justification for the sole-source award is not perceived as robust. Finally, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes overly reliant on a single contractor for critical technology development, potentially hindering future flexibility and competition.

What is the track record of the Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) as a contracting entity in the US DoD?

The Canadian Commercial Corporation (CCC) acts as a facilitator for Canadian companies seeking to do business with foreign governments, including the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). CCC typically enters into government-to-government agreements, ensuring that contracts awarded through them meet U.S. federal acquisition regulations. While CCC itself is not a technology developer, its role is to manage the contractual relationship and ensure performance by the Canadian prime contractor. Therefore, assessing CCC's 'track record' involves evaluating the performance history of the Canadian companies it represents on DoD contracts. The provided data shows CCC as the contracting entity for this specific R&D effort, indicating a past engagement with the DoD.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › Space R&D Services

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: Government of Canada (UEI: 241015486)

Address: 50 O'CONNOR ST SUITE 1100, OTTAWA

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,305,000

Exercised Options: $10,305,000

Current Obligation: $10,305,000

Timeline