DoD's $23.75M contract for Field Service Representatives awarded to Insitu, Inc. via sole-source vehicle

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,750,904 ($23.8M)

Contractor: Insitu, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2017-12-21

End Date: 2019-05-05

Contract Duration: 500 days

Daily Burn Rate: $47.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE (FSR)

Place of Performance

Location: BINGEN, KLICKITAT County, WASHINGTON, 98605

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.8 million to INSITU, INC. for work described as: FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE (FSR) Key points: 1. Value for money is difficult to assess due to sole-source award and limited public data. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a sole-source award, potentially limiting price discovery. 3. Risk indicators include the sole-source nature and lack of a competitive benchmark. 4. Performance context is for Field Service Representative (FSR) services, crucial for equipment readiness. 5. Sector positioning is within Defense, specifically supporting aircraft manufacturing and maintenance.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $23.75M for Field Service Representative (FSR) services lacks sufficient comparative data for a robust value assessment. As a sole-source award, it bypasses competitive bidding, making it challenging to benchmark pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The provided data does not include details on the specific services rendered or the number of personnel involved, further hindering a precise value-for-money analysis. Without a competitive process, it is difficult to ascertain if the government secured the best possible price and quality.

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. This typically occurs when only one responsible source is available or when a compelling justification for other than full and open competition exists. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no direct price competition, which can lead to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract. The specific justification for this sole-source award is not detailed in the provided data.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to leverage competition to drive down prices, potentially resulting in higher costs for taxpayers. Without a competitive process, there is less assurance that the selected contractor's pricing is the most economical.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from specialized Field Service Representative (FSR) support. Services provided are critical for the operational readiness and maintenance of aircraft. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around naval aviation facilities or deployment areas. Workforce implications include the employment of skilled FSRs, potentially with specialized technical expertise.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potential cost savings.
Lack of detailed service scope makes value assessment difficult.
Limited transparency on the justification for sole-source procurement.

Positive Signals

Award to a single, potentially specialized provider ensures dedicated support.
Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty once negotiated.
Contract duration of 500 days suggests a defined period of need.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically supporting the maintenance and operational readiness of military aircraft. The market for Field Service Representatives (FSRs) is often specialized, with contractors possessing unique technical knowledge and experience related to specific defense platforms. Spending in this area is driven by the need to maintain complex military equipment, ensuring its availability and effectiveness. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other sole-source or limited-competition contracts for similar specialized technical support services within the DoD.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a sole-source award, it is unlikely that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses were a primary consideration during the procurement process. This contract does not appear to directly impact the small business ecosystem through set-asides or mandated subcontracting goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Department of the Navy's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance requirements outlined in the contract and the firm fixed price structure. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award; however, contract awards are generally reported in federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Maintenance Services
Field Support Services
Defense Contractor Support
Naval Aviation Support
Specialized Technical Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may limit cost savings.
Lack of competition could impact price discovery.
Limited public data hinders comprehensive value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.8 million to INSITU, INC.. FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE (FSR)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INSITU, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $23.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-12-21. End: 2019-05-05.

What is the specific nature of the Field Service Representative (FSR) services provided under this contract?

The provided data identifies the contract as being for 'FIELD SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE (FSR)' services. While the specific tasks are not detailed, FSRs typically provide on-site technical support, maintenance, troubleshooting, training, and repair for complex equipment. In the context of the Department of the Navy and aircraft manufacturing (NAICS 336411), these services are likely critical for ensuring the operational readiness and effective functioning of naval aircraft and related systems. This could include diagnostics, repairs, modifications, and advising military personnel on equipment operation and maintenance procedures.

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

The data indicates this contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED' (ct: NOT COMPETED), signifying a sole-source procurement. The specific justification for this sole-source award is not provided in the data snippet. Common reasons for sole-source awards include situations where only one responsible source is capable of providing the required service or supply, urgent and compelling needs that preclude competition, or when a specific technology or proprietary knowledge is required. Without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition), the precise rationale remains unknown, but it implies a determination that competition was not feasible or advantageous.

How does the contract value of $23.75 million compare to similar Field Service Representative contracts?

Direct comparison of the $23.75 million contract value is challenging without more specific data on the scope of services, duration, and the specific type of aircraft or equipment supported. As a sole-source award, it bypasses the competitive benchmarking process that would typically inform pricing. To assess value, one would need to compare it against other sole-source or limited-competition contracts for similar FSR services within the Department of Defense, considering factors like the complexity of the equipment, the required expertise, and the geographic locations of service. The contract duration of 500 days (dur: 500) suggests a significant, but finite, period of support.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for critical Field Service Representative support?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award is the potential for reduced value for money due to the absence of price competition. This can lead to higher costs for the government compared to what might be achieved through a competitive bidding process. Other risks include a potential lack of incentive for the sole-source contractor to innovate or improve efficiency beyond what is contractually required, and a dependency on a single provider which could create vulnerabilities if that provider faces performance issues or business challenges. Ensuring adequate oversight and performance management becomes even more critical in sole-source situations.

What is the track record of Insitu, Inc. in providing Field Service Representative services to the Department of Defense?

Insitu, Inc. is a known entity within the defense sector, particularly recognized for its unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and related services. While this specific contract is for Field Service Representatives (FSRs), Insitu's broader experience likely involves providing technical support, training, and maintenance for its own systems or similar complex defense technologies. Their track record in delivering UAS solutions suggests a capability in providing specialized technical support. However, the extent and success of their FSR services specifically, outside of their core UAS product support, would require a deeper dive into their contract history and performance reviews beyond the provided data.

What does the contract type 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' imply for cost control and risk allocation?

The 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' (pt: FIRM FIXED PRICE) contract type indicates that the contractor, Insitu, Inc., agreed to a total price for the defined scope of work. This structure places the primary risk of cost overruns on the contractor. For the government, it provides cost certainty, as the final price is fixed regardless of the contractor's actual costs incurred. This is generally favorable for the buyer when the scope of work is well-defined and the risks of unforeseen costs are manageable. It incentivizes the contractor to control costs efficiently to maximize profit.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N0001912R0101

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Boeing Company (UEI: 009256819)

Address: 118 E COLUMBIA RIVER WAY, BINGEN, WA, 98605

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,964,212

Exercised Options: $23,750,904

Current Obligation: $23,750,904

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0001913D0016

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline