DoD's $18.8M ONR contract for R&D services awarded to General Atomics shows questionable value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,817,690 ($18.8M)

Contractor: General Atomics

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-02-23

End Date: 2011-02-23

Contract Duration: 2,191 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: 200505!003346!1700!N00014!OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH !N0001404C0618 !A!N! !N! ! !20050223!20110131!067638957!067638957!859181984!N!GENERAL ATOMICS !3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!66000!073!06!SAN DIEGO !SAN DIEGO !CALIFORNIA!+000003632000!N!N!000000000000!AD91!RDTE/OTHER DEFENSE-BASIC RESEARCH !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541710!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!N!V!2!002!E! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! !1714!N00014!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92121

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.8 million to GENERAL ATOMICS for work described as: 200505!003346!1700!N00014!OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH !N0001404C0618 !A!N! !N! ! !20050223!20110131!067638957!067638957!859181984!N!GENERAL ATOMICS !3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!66000!073!06!SAN DIEGO !SAN … Key points: 1. The contract awarded to General Atomics for R&D services appears to have questionable value given the lack of detailed performance metrics. 2. Competition was limited, with the award made after exclusion of sources, potentially impacting price discovery. 3. The risk of overpaying is moderate due to the Cost Plus Incentive fee structure and limited competition. 4. Spending in the R&D sector is significant, but this specific contract's efficiency is unclear.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $18.8 million for R&D services is substantial. Without clear performance benchmarks or comparison data for similar research contracts, assessing its value for money is difficult. The Cost Plus Incentive fee structure adds complexity.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating limited competition. This method may not have resulted in the most competitive pricing, as potential bidders were excluded.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition and Cost Plus Incentive fee structure raise concerns about potential overspending, impacting taxpayer funds negatively.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for research and development services due to a lack of robust competition. The long duration of the contract (2005-2011) suggests a significant, ongoing investment of public funds. The specific nature of the R&D is not detailed, making it hard for the public to understand the direct benefits.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Limited competition
  • Cost Plus Incentive fee structure
  • Lack of detailed performance metrics
  • Unclear taxpayer benefit

Positive Signals

  • Awarded to a known entity (General Atomics)
  • Contract supports Office of Naval Research objectives

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically for physical, engineering, and life sciences. Federal spending in R&D is crucial for innovation, but oversight is key to ensure efficiency and value.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that small businesses were involved in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. This represents a missed opportunity for small business participation in federal R&D spending.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract's award justification and oversight mechanisms are not detailed here. Robust oversight is essential for Cost Plus contracts to ensure funds are used efficiently and effectively, especially given the limited competition.

Related Government Programs

  • Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
  • Department of Defense Contracting
  • Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

  • Potential for cost overruns due to CPIF structure
  • Lack of transparency in competition method
  • Absence of clear performance metrics for value assessment
  • Limited public information on research outcomes
  • No apparent small business participation

Tags

research-and-development-in-the-physical, department-of-defense, ca, dca, 10m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.8 million to GENERAL ATOMICS. 200505!003346!1700!N00014!OFFICE OF NAVAL RESEARCH !N0001404C0618 !A!N! !N! ! !20050223!20110131!067638957!067638957!859181984!N!GENERAL ATOMICS !3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!66000!073!06!SAN DIEGO !SAN DIEGO !CALIFORNIA!+000003632000!N!N!000000000000!AD91!RDTE/OTHER DEFENSE-BASIC RESEARCH !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541710!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL ATOMICS.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-02-23. End: 2011-02-23.

What specific research outcomes were achieved under this contract, and how do they align with the initial objectives and investment?

The provided data lacks specific details on the research outcomes. To assess value, a review of the final reports, deliverables, and their impact on naval research objectives would be necessary. Without this, it's difficult to determine if the $18.8 million investment yielded significant advancements or met expectations.

How did the 'exclusion of sources' process impact the final negotiated price compared to a full and open competition?

The 'exclusion of sources' inherently limits the pool of potential bidders, which can reduce competitive pressure and potentially lead to higher prices than might be achieved in a full and open competition. A thorough analysis would require comparing the negotiated price against benchmarks for similar services procured through open competition.

What mechanisms were in place to ensure the Cost Plus Incentive fee structure effectively controlled costs and incentivized performance?

The data does not detail the specific incentive targets or the oversight applied to the Cost Plus Incentive fee structure. Effective control requires clear performance metrics, regular monitoring of costs against targets, and a well-defined process for adjusting fees based on contractor performance and cost management.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical ServicesScientific Research and Development ServicesResearch and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENTDEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: BASIC RESEARCH

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT, SAN DIEGO, CA, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,192,573

Exercised Options: $3,192,573

Current Obligation: $18,817,690

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-02-23

Current End Date: 2011-02-23

Potential End Date: 2011-02-23 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2014-09-19

More Contracts from General Atomics

View all General Atomics federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending