DoD's $17.6M contract for radar equipment awarded to Amherst Systems, Inc. in 1999 shows long-term vendor relationship

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,633,585 ($17.6M)

Contractor: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-10-01

End Date: 2010-09-22

Contract Duration: 3,643 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200102!000191!1700!AT725 !NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001999C1472 !A!N!*!N! !19990325!20000324!074044769!008255408!016435559!N!AMHERST SYSTEMS, INC , A SUBSI!30 WILSON ROAD !BUFFALO !NY!14221!11000!029!36!BUFFALO !ERIE !NEW YORK !+000004867167!N!N!000000000000!5840!RADAR EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT AIRBORNE !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !334111!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!J!2!001!K! !A!N!A! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !C! !B!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: BUFFALO, ERIE County, NEW YORK, 14221

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.6 million to NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION for work described as: 200102!000191!1700!AT725 !NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001999C1472 !A!N!*!N! !19990325!20000324!074044769!008255408!016435559!N!AMHERST SYSTEMS, INC , A SUBSI!30 WILSON ROAD !BUFFALO !NY!14221!11000!029!36!BUFFALO !ERIE … Key points: 1. Contract awarded in 1999 for radar equipment, indicating a potentially mature technology or long-standing need. 2. The award to Amherst Systems, Inc. suggests a specific vendor capability or established relationship within the defense sector. 3. A firm-fixed-price contract type implies that cost risks were largely borne by the contractor. 4. The contract duration of approximately 10 years (from March 1999 to September 2010) points to a significant, long-term requirement. 5. The primary agency involved is the Naval Air Systems Command, highlighting its role in procuring specialized equipment. 6. The product service code (PSC) 5840 indicates a focus on radar equipment, excluding airborne systems.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $17.6 million over a decade for radar equipment is difficult to benchmark without more specific details on the type and quantity of equipment. Given the award date of 1999, current market prices for similar advanced radar systems would likely be significantly different. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests the government aimed to control costs, but the long duration could have led to price escalations if not managed carefully. Without comparative data on similar procurements from that era or detailed specifications, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which is an unusual designation. This suggests that while competition was intended, specific circumstances led to the exclusion of certain potential bidders. The exact reasons for this exclusion are not detailed, making it difficult to assess the breadth of competition. Typically, such a clause might be used when only a few sources can meet highly specialized requirements, potentially limiting price discovery and increasing costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition, even if justified by specialized needs, may have resulted in higher prices for taxpayers compared to a truly open competition with multiple bidders.

Public Impact

Naval Air Systems Command benefits from the acquisition of essential radar equipment for its operations. The contract supports the development and maintenance of radar capabilities crucial for national defense. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, supporting defense infrastructure and potentially related technology hubs. Workforce implications include employment at Amherst Systems, Inc. and potentially its subcontractors, contributing to the defense industrial base.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'limited competition' aspect raises questions about whether the best possible price was achieved for taxpayers.
The long contract duration (10 years) could mask inefficiencies or outdated technology if not actively managed and reviewed.
Lack of detailed information on the specific radar systems procured makes it hard to assess technological relevance and value.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation into the justification and impact on competition.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type generally provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarding to a specific company like Amherst Systems, Inc. suggests they met stringent technical requirements.
The contract's long duration indicates a sustained and critical need for the radar equipment.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically related to electronics and communication equipment. The market for radar systems is highly specialized, often dominated by a few key players due to significant R&D investment and technological complexity. Spending in this area is critical for military modernization and maintaining technological superiority. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific type of radar system, its capabilities (e.g., surveillance, targeting, weather), and the era of procurement.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract involved small business set-asides or significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The primary awardee, Amherst Systems, Inc., was a subsidiary, and the contract value suggests a potentially large-scale operation. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to determine the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would have been primarily managed by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) and potentially the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures would be tied to the firm-fixed-price contract terms, delivery schedules, and performance specifications. Transparency is limited by the available data; specific oversight reports or IG investigations related to this particular contract are not detailed here.

Related Government Programs

Naval Air Systems Command Procurement
Defense Electronics Procurement
Radar Systems Acquisition
Firm Fixed Price Contracts
Long Term Defense Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited Competition Justification
Potential for Technological Obsolescence
Long Contract Duration Risk
Lack of Detailed Technical Specifications

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.6 million to NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION. 200102!000191!1700!AT725 !NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001999C1472 !A!N!*!N! !19990325!20000324!074044769!008255408!016435559!N!AMHERST SYSTEMS, INC , A SUBSI!30 WILSON ROAD !BUFFALO !NY!14221!11000!029!36!BUFFALO !ERIE !NEW YORK !+000004867167!N!N!000000000000!5840!RADAR EQUIPMENT, EXCEPT AIRBORNE !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !334111!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-10-01. End: 2010-09-22.

What specific type of radar equipment was procured under this contract, and what were its intended applications?

The Product Service Code (PSC) 5840 indicates 'Radar Equipment, Except Airborne.' This broad category encompasses a range of ground-based or ship-based radar systems used for surveillance, detection, tracking, or other military applications. Without more specific contract line item details or technical specifications, it's impossible to determine the exact type of radar. Potential applications could include air defense, maritime surveillance, ground target acquisition, or electronic warfare support. The awarding agency, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), suggests a focus on systems supporting naval aviation or fleet operations, possibly for ground support, carrier operations, or related infrastructure.

What was the justification for the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award type?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' (F&O C AES) award type is unusual and suggests a specific scenario. Typically, 'Full and Open Competition' means all responsible sources are permitted to submit offers. The 'Exclusion of Sources' part implies that after an initial solicitation or market research, only a limited number of sources were deemed capable of meeting the requirement, or perhaps specific sources were excluded for reasons not detailed in this summary. This could be due to highly specialized technical requirements, proprietary technology, or unique security considerations. The justification would likely stem from a determination that a broader competition was not feasible or practical, potentially leading to a sole-source or limited-source situation after initial attempts at wider competition.

How did the pricing of this contract compare to market rates for similar radar equipment at the time of award?

Benchmarking the pricing of this $17.6 million contract, awarded in 1999, against contemporary market rates for similar radar equipment is challenging without detailed specifications. Radar systems vary immensely in complexity, capability, and cost. Factors like resolution, range, processing power, and environmental hardening significantly influence price. Given the 'limited competition' aspect, it's possible that the price was higher than what might have been achieved in a more competitive environment. A thorough analysis would require access to detailed technical data sheets, quantity orders, and comparative pricing data from other government or commercial procurements of similar systems from the late 1990s.

What was Amherst Systems, Inc.'s track record or specialization that led to this significant contract award?

Amherst Systems, Inc. (a subsidiary) was awarded this substantial contract, suggesting they possessed specialized capabilities in radar technology or related electronic systems relevant to the Naval Air Systems Command's needs in 1999. Companies in this space often focus on areas like signal processing, antenna design, electronic warfare components, or integrated radar systems. Without specific historical company profiles or project details from that era, it's difficult to pinpoint their exact specialization. However, securing a long-term, multi-million dollar contract from a major defense agency like NAVAIR typically indicates a proven ability to meet stringent technical, performance, and reliability standards required for military applications.

What are the potential risks associated with a 10-year contract for radar equipment awarded in 1999?

A 10-year contract for technology-intensive equipment like radar, awarded in 1999, carries several risks. Firstly, technological obsolescence is a major concern; radar technology evolves rapidly, and systems procured over a decade ago might be outdated by the end of the contract period, potentially impacting operational effectiveness. Secondly, cost control over such a long duration can be difficult, even with a firm-fixed-price structure, due to potential changes in labor costs, component prices, or the need for upgrades. Thirdly, maintaining contractor performance and ensuring continued value requires robust oversight. Finally, the 'limited competition' aspect could mean the government locked into a specific solution without the benefit of ongoing market innovation and competitive pressure.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Computer and Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing › Electronic Computer Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Titan II Inc. (UEI: 016435559)

Address: 30 WILSON ROAD, BUFFALO, NY, 14221

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline