DoD's $15.2M missile system development contract awarded to Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,201,170 ($15.2M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-11-02

End Date: 2001-09-30

Contract Duration: 332 days

Daily Burn Rate: $45.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200105!00A102!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003001C0014 !A!N!*!N!P00001 !20001102!20010930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDLESEX !MASS !+000004000000!N!N!000000000000!AC27!RDTE/MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS-OP SYSTEM DEVELOP !S1 !SERVICES !2CNJ!UGM-96 TRIDENT !541330!*!*!3! ! !C!*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !D !N!U!1!001!N!1G!Z!Y!Z! ! !N!Z!N! ! ! ! ! !A!A!000!A!D!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: CAMBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.2 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: 200105!00A102!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003001C0014 !A!N!*!N!P00001 !20001102!20010930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDL… Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies. 2. Significant portion of the contract value allocated to research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E). 3. The contractor, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc., has a long history with the Department of Defense. 4. Contract duration of approximately 11 months suggests a focused, short-term project. 5. The specific missile system (UGM-96 TRIDENT) indicates a focus on strategic defense capabilities. 6. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $15.2 million for engineering services related to missile and space systems development appears substantial for an 11-month period. Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while common for R&D, carries inherent risks of cost escalation if the contractor's costs exceed initial estimates, as the government bears the majority of the financial risk. Further analysis would require comparing this to similar RDT&E contracts for missile systems and assessing the contractor's historical performance and cost control measures.

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 vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the unique capabilities or technology required for the project, or in cases of urgent need. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms that arise from a bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple firms had competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without a bidding process, there's less assurance that the price reflects the most economical option available in the market.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, specifically the Strategic Systems Programs, which receives critical development services for missile systems. The contract supports the development and enhancement of the UGM-96 TRIDENT missile system, a key component of national strategic defense. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, with potential implications for defense industry hubs. Workforce implications include employment for highly skilled engineers and technical personnel at Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification requires scrutiny.
The specific nature of missile system development may limit the pool of qualified contractors, necessitating sole-source awards in some cases.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a specialized contractor with demonstrated expertise in strategic systems.
Focus on RDT&E for critical defense assets aligns with national security objectives.
The contract supports the maintenance and advancement of the nation's strategic deterrent capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically focusing on missile and space systems development. The market for such specialized engineering services is highly concentrated, often dominated by a few key contractors with the necessary security clearances, technical expertise, and past performance. Spending in this area is critical for national security and is subject to stringent oversight. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other RDT&E contracts for strategic weapon systems within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as it was awarded to a large, established contractor. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The nature of specialized missile system development often requires deep technical expertise and infrastructure that may not be readily available from smaller firms, potentially limiting their participation in such prime contracts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices, potentially including the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) for contract administration. Inspector General (IG) offices within the DoD would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally limited for sole-source defense contracts, but program reviews and audits are standard oversight mechanisms.

Related Government Programs

Strategic Systems Programs (SSP)
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems
Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program
Advanced Weapons Development
Aerospace Engineering Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about potential lack of competition and price efficiency.
Cost-plus contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Limited public information on specific performance metrics for this contract.
Contract awarded in the early stages of system development, where technical uncertainties are high.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.2 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. 200105!00A102!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003001C0014 !A!N!*!N!P00001 !20001102!20010930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDLESEX !MASS !+000004000000!N!N!000000000000!AC27!RDTE/MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS-OP SYSTEM DEVELOP !S1 !SERVICES !2CNJ!UGM-96 TRIDENT !541330!*!*!3! ! !C!*!*!*!B!*!*!A!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-11-02. End: 2001-09-30.

What is the track record of Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. with the Department of Defense, particularly on similar missile system development contracts?

Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. (CSDL) has a long and extensive history of supporting the Department of Defense, particularly in areas related to guidance, navigation, and control systems for strategic weapons. They are a well-established entity with deep expertise in complex defense technologies. Their involvement with programs like the Trident missile system dates back decades. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts would involve reviewing contract award histories, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any documented issues or successes. Generally, CSDL is recognized for its technical capabilities, but like any large contractor, specific contract performance can vary. Without access to detailed performance reviews for this specific contract, a comprehensive assessment is challenging, but their overall reputation in the defense R&D community is strong.

How does the $15.2 million contract value compare to similar missile system development contracts awarded by the DoD in the early 2000s?

Comparing the $15.2 million contract value requires context regarding the specific scope of work and the economic conditions of the early 2000s. Missile system development contracts can vary significantly in price based on complexity, technology maturity, and duration. For a roughly 11-month project focused on development and system integration for a strategic missile, $15.2 million was a substantial, but not necessarily outlier, figure for the time. However, without a competitive bidding process, it's difficult to ascertain if this represented optimal value. Similar contracts for less complex components or sustainment might be lower, while contracts for entirely new system designs or major upgrades could be significantly higher. Inflation and technological advancements also play a role in making direct comparisons across different eras challenging.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for missile system development, and how were they mitigated in this case?

The primary risk with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs, as the government agrees to cover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. If the contractor's actual costs exceed the initial estimates, the government bears the brunt of the overrun, while the contractor still receives their fixed fee. This can lead to cost escalation. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust government oversight, detailed cost tracking, stringent auditing of expenses, and clear definition of allowable costs in the contract. For missile system development, where R&D can be unpredictable, CPFF is often used to encourage innovation and allow for flexibility. However, effective management and oversight by the contracting agency are crucial to ensure the contractor remains cost-conscious and that the fixed fee is appropriate for the effort.

Given the sole-source nature, what specific justification was likely provided for awarding this contract without competition?

Sole-source awards are typically justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations. For a contract like this, likely justifications would include: 1) Unique Capability: Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. may possess unique technical expertise, proprietary data, or specialized facilities essential for the development of the UGM-96 TRIDENT missile system, making them the only responsible source. 2) Urgency: While less likely for a development contract of this nature unless tied to an immediate, unforeseen national security threat, extreme urgency can sometimes be a factor. 3) Continued Research/Development: If the contract was a follow-on to previous work where CSDL was the sole developer, it might be justified to maintain continuity and leverage existing knowledge. The specific justification would need to demonstrate that full and open competition was not feasible or would not be in the government's best interest, often requiring detailed technical and market research documentation.

What is the significance of the PSC code '541330' (Engineering Services) in the context of this missile system development contract?

The Product Service Code (PSC) '541330' signifies 'Engineering Services.' This broad category encompasses a wide range of activities, including design, development, testing, and consultation related to engineering projects. In the context of this missile system development contract, it indicates that the primary service procured involves the application of engineering principles and expertise. This could include conceptual design, system integration, performance analysis, simulation, prototyping, and technical support. The code aligns with the contract's description of 'RDTE/MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS-OP SYSTEM DEVELOP,' confirming that the core of the contract revolves around specialized engineering efforts required to develop or enhance operational systems within the missile and space domain.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D 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

Address: 555 TECHNOLOGY SQ, CAMBRIDGE, MA, 02139

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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline