DoD's $115.6M R&D contract to Draper Lab shows long-term investment in advanced technology

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $115,658,032 ($115.7M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-11-08

End Date: 2010-09-16

Contract Duration: 3,234 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Place of Performance

Location: CAMBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $115.7 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for research and development in physical, engineering, and life sciences. 2. Long duration of over 8 years suggests a complex, multi-phase project. 3. Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure indicates potential for cost overruns if not managed closely. 4. Sole-source award raises questions about competition and potential value for money. 5. Contractor's established presence in defense R&D likely influenced the award decision. 6. Focus on advanced technology development aligns with strategic defense priorities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract is challenging without specific deliverables and performance metrics. CPFF contracts can be prone to cost overruns if the scope is not tightly defined or if unforeseen technical challenges arise. The fixed fee component provides some incentive for the contractor to control costs, but the primary risk lies with the government absorbing direct costs. Comparing this to similar R&D efforts would require detailed analysis of the specific research areas and expected outcomes.

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 a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or when urgency dictates a rapid award. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from a competitive bidding process, which could have potentially led to lower prices or more innovative solutions from a wider pool of contractors.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can limit opportunities for taxpayers to benefit from competitive pricing and may indicate a reliance on a single provider, potentially reducing cost-effectiveness over the long term.

Public Impact

Benefits the Department of Defense by advancing critical research and development capabilities. Services delivered include cutting-edge research in physical, engineering, and life sciences. Geographic impact is primarily centered in Massachusetts, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications include employment of highly skilled scientists and engineers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure carries inherent risk of cost escalation.
Long contract duration requires sustained oversight to ensure alignment with evolving needs.
Lack of detailed public information on specific R&D objectives hinders performance assessment.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a known entity with expertise in R&D.
Focus on advanced technology development aligns with national security interests.
Long-term engagement suggests a strategic investment in critical capabilities.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Research and Development (R&D) sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. This sector is characterized by innovation, long development cycles, and often high costs. Government spending in this area is crucial for maintaining technological superiority and addressing future challenges. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific sub-disciplines within R&D being pursued, but significant investments are common for advanced defense technologies.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. The large value and specialized nature of the R&D work suggest that the primary contractor, THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC., is likely a large business. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans to small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity for engaging the small business ecosystem in this significant R&D effort.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), as indicated by 'sa'. Accountability measures would be tied to the milestones and deliverables outlined in the Cost Plus Fixed Fee agreement. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the proprietary aspects often associated with advanced R&D. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Advanced Technology Development Programs
Defense Research and Engineering
Science and Technology Base Investments
Engineering Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $115.7 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

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 $115.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-11-08. End: 2010-09-16.

What specific technological advancements was this contract intended to achieve?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences' (NAICS 541710) awarded to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. While the specific technological advancements are not detailed in the summary data, The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory is historically known for its work in areas such as inertial navigation systems, guidance, control, and avionics for aerospace and defense applications. Given the long duration (over 8 years) and the nature of R&D, it's probable that this contract supported foundational research, prototyping, or development of next-generation systems in these or related fields, potentially including areas like advanced sensors, autonomous systems, or complex modeling and simulation.

How does the $115.6 million cost compare to similar R&D contracts for advanced technologies?

Comparing the $115.6 million cost requires context regarding the specific R&D domain, duration, and scope. For advanced defense R&D, especially involving complex systems development over an 8-year period, this figure is not unusually high. Major defense contractors and specialized research institutions often undertake projects in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. However, without knowing the precise deliverables (e.g., basic research vs. system prototype), it's difficult to make a direct benchmark. The sole-source nature also means this figure wasn't validated through competitive bidding, which could have potentially yielded a lower cost for comparable outcomes.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude and duration?

The primary risks with a CPFF contract of this scale ($115.6M over 3234 days) are cost escalation and scope creep. While the fixed fee provides some incentive for the contractor to manage costs efficiently, the government bears the risk of all allowable direct and indirect costs. If the research encounters unforeseen technical challenges or requires more resources than initially estimated, the total cost to the government can significantly exceed initial projections. Furthermore, the long duration increases the risk that the technology's requirements may evolve, necessitating contract modifications that could further inflate costs or alter the original objectives. Robust oversight and clear milestone definitions are critical to mitigate these risks.

Given it was a sole-source award, what justification was likely provided for not competing the contract?

Sole-source awards are typically justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations. For a contractor like The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc., common justifications include: 1) Unique capabilities or specialized knowledge possessed by only one source, essential for the R&D. 2) Proprietary data or technology that restricts competition. 3) Urgency, although this is less likely for an 8-year R&D project unless it addresses a sudden, critical need. 4) Continuation of prior R&D where the original contractor is best positioned to complete the work. The agency likely asserted that Draper Lab held unique expertise or intellectual property critical to the specific research objectives, making competition impractical or detrimental to the program's success.

What is the historical spending pattern for The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. with the Department of Defense?

The provided data shows a single contract awarded to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. by the Department of Defense (DoD) from 2001 to 2010 for approximately $115.6 million. This suggests a significant, long-term engagement during that period. To understand broader historical spending patterns, one would need to analyze contract databases for all awards to this entity across all federal agencies and over a longer timeframe. However, this specific contract indicates a substantial investment by the DoD in Draper Lab's R&D capabilities during the early 2000s, likely reflecting its established role as a key defense research contractor.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Address: 555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE, MA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline