DoD's $665.8M contract for guided missile components awarded to Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $48,018,212 ($48.0M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-12-17

End Date: 2005-12-30

Contract Duration: 744 days

Daily Burn Rate: $64.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200406!00A034!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003004C0010 !A!N! !N! ! !20031217!20050930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDLESEX !MASS !+000048699938!N!N!000000000000!1420!GUIDED MISSILE COMPONENTS !A2 !MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS !178 !TRIDENT II MISSILE !541710!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!U!U!1!001!N!1A!Z!Y!Z! ! !N!Z!N! ! ! ! ! !A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: CAMBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $48.0 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: 200406!00A034!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003004C0010 !A!N! !N! ! !20031217!20050930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDD… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for critical missile components, indicating a focus on strategic defense capabilities. 2. The sole-source nature of this award warrants scrutiny regarding potential price inflation and limited market engagement. 3. A significant contract value suggests a high degree of technical complexity and specialized expertise required. 4. The contract duration of approximately two years points to a defined project scope within a larger defense program. 5. Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences is the primary NAICS code, highlighting innovation in this area. 6. The award to a single, established contractor may limit opportunities for emerging businesses in this specialized field.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $665.8 million for guided missile components over two years appears substantial. Without direct comparable contracts for identical components, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure suggests that while the contractor has an incentive to control costs, the government bears the risk of cost overruns. Benchmarking against similar R&D contracts for advanced defense systems would be necessary for a more definitive evaluation of pricing and value.

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 is the only source capable of meeting the requirement. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from a bidding process that could have driven down prices or fostered innovation through diverse proposals.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition for this significant contract means taxpayers may have paid a premium, as there was no market pressure to ensure the lowest possible price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, specifically the Strategic Systems Programs, ensuring the continued development and maintenance of critical missile systems. The contract delivers specialized components essential for the operational readiness and effectiveness of the Trident II missile system. The geographic impact is concentrated in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where Charles Stark Draper Laboratory is located, potentially supporting local high-tech employment. The contract supports a highly specialized workforce in advanced engineering, materials science, and defense manufacturing.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential innovation.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract structure carries inherent risk of cost overruns for the government.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification could mask inefficiencies.
High contract value necessitates rigorous oversight to ensure funds are used effectively.
Limited visibility into subcontracting opportunities for small businesses.

Positive Signals

Award to a known entity, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, suggests reliance on established expertise.
Focus on critical missile components indicates alignment with national security priorities.
The contract supports advanced research and development, potentially leading to technological advancements.
The fixed-fee component provides some cost certainty for the government compared to pure cost-plus contracts.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The market for advanced defense components, particularly for strategic missile systems, is highly specialized and often dominated by a few key contractors with the necessary security clearances and technical expertise. Spending in this area is driven by national security imperatives and technological advancement, with significant government investment required for innovation and sustainment.

Small Business Impact

The sole-source nature of this contract suggests limited direct opportunities for small businesses through prime contracting. While Charles Stark Draper Laboratory may engage small businesses as subcontractors, the lack of a formal competition or small business set-aside requirement means such opportunities are not guaranteed or mandated. Further investigation into the contractor's subcontracting plan would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contract management and inspection agencies, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's terms, including performance milestones and reporting requirements. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature, but contract awards are generally reported in federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Strategic Weapons Systems
Ballistic Missile Defense
Advanced Component Manufacturing
Defense Research and Development
Naval Weapons Systems

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
High contract value
Critical defense system component

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $48.0 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. 200406!00A034!1700!XSP01 !STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003004C0010 !A!N! !N! ! !20031217!20050930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDLESEX !MASS !+000048699938!N!N!000000000000!1420!GUIDED MISSILE COMPONENTS !A2 !MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS !178 !TRIDENT II MISSILE !541710!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !999

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 $48.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-12-17. End: 2005-12-30.

What is the track record of Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. with Department of Defense contracts, particularly for missile components?

Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. has a long-standing 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 research and development organization with significant experience in complex defense projects. Their involvement with programs like the Trident missile system dates back decades. While specific performance metrics for individual contracts are often not publicly detailed, their continued selection for critical programs suggests a generally positive track record in delivering specialized technical solutions and components required for national security.

How does the $665.8 million contract value compare to similar R&D contracts for missile components?

Direct comparisons for such a specific and high-value contract are challenging due to the proprietary nature of defense technology and the unique requirements of strategic missile systems. However, contracts in the hundreds of millions of dollars for R&D and component manufacturing are not uncommon within the defense sector, especially for programs involving advanced technology and long development cycles. The value reflects the complexity, specialized materials, rigorous testing, and high level of expertise required. Benchmarking would ideally involve comparing it to other sole-source or limited-competition awards for similar critical defense systems, considering factors like contract duration, scope of work, and technological sophistication.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for guided missile components?

The primary risks associated with this contract structure are twofold. Firstly, the sole-source nature eliminates competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher prices than might be achieved in an open competition. The government relies heavily on the contractor's proposed costs and the oversight provided by contracting officers. Secondly, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure means the government pays the contractor's actual costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. While the fixed fee incentivizes cost control to some extent, the government bears the risk of cost overruns if actual costs exceed estimates. This requires robust government oversight to monitor expenditures and ensure efficiency.

How effective is the oversight for sole-source contracts awarded to established defense contractors like Charles Stark Draper Laboratory?

Oversight for sole-source contracts, especially with established contractors like Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, relies heavily on the diligence of the contracting agency and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Oversight typically involves detailed review of cost proposals, monitoring of expenditures, performance assessments against contract milestones, and quality assurance inspections. For CPFF contracts, oversight is critical to ensure that costs incurred are reasonable, allocable, and allowable. While established contractors often have mature internal controls, the lack of competition necessitates heightened vigilance from the government side to ensure value and prevent potential inefficiencies or overpricing.

What are the historical spending patterns for guided missile components and related R&D by the Department of Defense?

The Department of Defense consistently allocates significant funding towards missile systems, including research, development, and procurement of components. Historical spending patterns show a sustained investment in maintaining and modernizing strategic deterrent capabilities, such as the Trident II missile program. This includes substantial outlays for advanced materials, guidance systems, propulsion, and testing. Spending in this category often fluctuates based on program lifecycles, technological advancements, and geopolitical considerations. Contracts for specialized components, particularly those awarded sole-source due to unique technological requirements, represent a consistent, albeit often classified or less transparent, portion of the overall defense budget.

What are the implications of awarding a contract of this magnitude to a single entity for the future of missile component development?

Awarding a contract of this magnitude to a single entity like Charles Stark Draper Laboratory can have several implications. On the positive side, it ensures continuity and deep expertise for a critical program, potentially accelerating development and ensuring high quality. However, it also concentrates significant R&D capabilities and funding within one organization, which could stifle broader innovation or create dependencies. It may also limit the entry of new competitors into this specialized market, potentially impacting long-term competition and cost-effectiveness for future programs. The government must actively manage this relationship to ensure ongoing technological advancement and explore avenues for future competition or collaboration.

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: GUIDED MISSLES

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, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline