DoD awards $93M engineering services contract to Electric Boat Corporation, a sole-source procurement

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $93,004,393 ($93.0M)

Contractor: Electric Boat Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-10-11

End Date: 2011-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,815 days

Daily Burn Rate: $51.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: RPPY

Place of Performance

Location: GROTON, NEW LONDON County, CONNECTICUT, 06340

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $93.0 million to ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION for work described as: RPPY Key points: 1. Contract awarded to Electric Boat Corporation for engineering services. 2. The contract value is $93,004,393. 3. Procurement method was 'NOT COMPETED', indicating a sole-source award. 4. The contract duration was 1815 days, spanning from October 2006 to September 2011.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to assess if the $93M price represents fair value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was not competed, suggesting a sole-source award. This limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers as there was no market pressure to offer the best price.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source contracts can result in higher costs for taxpayers due to the lack of competition.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the lack of competitive bidding. The long duration of the contract suggests a critical or specialized service was required. Oversight of cost-plus contracts is crucial to prevent excessive spending.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source procurement
Cost-plus contract type
Lack of competition

Positive Signals

Awarded to a known entity (Electric Boat Corporation)
Contract duration aligns with potential project needs

Sector Analysis

Engineering services, particularly for specialized sectors like defense, can be complex and require unique expertise. Benchmarking costs for such services is challenging without competitive data, but sole-source awards often carry a risk of inflated pricing.

Small Business Impact

This contract was awarded to Electric Boat Corporation, a large entity, and there is no indication of small business participation. The sole-source nature of the award further limits opportunities for small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' status raises questions about the justification for avoiding competition. Robust oversight would be necessary to ensure the cost-plus fixed fee structure did not lead to excessive expenditures.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Navy Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
Cost-plus contract type can lead to cost overruns.
Potential for inflated costs due to lack of competition.
Limited transparency on justification for sole-sourcing.
No clear indication of small business involvement.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $93.0 million to ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION. RPPY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ELECTRIC BOAT CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $93.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-10-11. End: 2011-09-30.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The justification for a sole-source award typically involves unique capabilities, urgent needs, or a lack of viable alternatives. Without specific documentation, it's impossible to confirm the exact reason, but such justifications are critical for ensuring taxpayer funds are used appropriately and that competition is only bypassed when truly necessary.

How was the 'fixed fee' component determined in this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract?

In a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract, the fixed fee is negotiated upfront and represents the contractor's profit. It's typically a percentage of the estimated cost or a fixed dollar amount. The determination process involves negotiation, considering the complexity of the work, risks involved, and the contractor's expertise. However, without competition, the negotiation process might not yield the most favorable fee for the government.

What mechanisms were in place to ensure cost control and prevent overruns on this $93M contract?

For Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts, cost control relies heavily on government oversight, including regular audits, review of incurred costs, and monitoring of project progress against the estimated cost. Specific mechanisms might include establishing target costs, incentive clauses (though not explicitly stated here), and strict adherence to the contract's scope of work to prevent scope creep, which is crucial for managing potential overruns.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 75 EASTERN POINT RD, GROTON, CT, 02

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $106,547,435

Exercised Options: $105,807,210

Current Obligation: $93,004,393

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline