Navy awards $26.2M for Trident II missile maintenance and repair, with limited competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,182,312 ($26.2M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-04-26

End Date: 2006-12-31

Contract Duration: 979 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200507!00A187!1700!N00030!STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003004C0035 !A!N! !Y! !P00002!20040426!20061231!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!THE DRAPER CHARLES STARK LABOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQ !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDLESEX !MASS !+000001521288!N!N!000000000000!J014!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/GUIDED MISSILES !S1 !SERVICES !178 !TRIDENT II MISSILE !541710!E! !3! ! !C! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !D!U!V!1!001!N!1A!Z!Y!Z! ! !N!Z!N! ! ! ! ! !A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! !1700!N00030!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: BOSTON, SUFFOLK County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02210, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.2 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: 200507!00A187!1700!N00030!STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003004C0035 !A!N! !Y! !P00002!20040426!20061231!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!THE DRAPER CHARLES STARK LABOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQ !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDD… Key points: 1. Contract value of $26.2M for maintenance and repair of guided missiles. 2. Awarded to The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc., a sole-source provider. 3. Duration of contract is approximately 2.6 years. 4. The contract falls under Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. 5. This contract represents a small portion of the Navy's overall spending in this category. 6. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, indicating performance incentives. 7. The primary location of performance is Cambridge, MA.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $26.2 million for approximately 2.6 years of service for missile maintenance and repair appears reasonable given the specialized nature of the work. However, without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar sole-source contracts, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure suggests an attempt to incentivize performance, which can be a positive indicator if well-managed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis to The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. This indicates that the government determined only this contractor could provide the required services. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for price discovery through a bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit opportunities for competitive pricing, which can result in less favorable terms for taxpayers compared to fully competed contracts.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the U.S. Navy, which receives essential maintenance and repair services for the Trident II missile system. The services delivered are critical for the operational readiness and effectiveness of a key strategic defense asset. The geographic impact is primarily in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where the contractor is located. The contract supports specialized technical and engineering workforce within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potentially reduces value for money.
Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Lack of transparency in sole-source justifications can obscure potential alternatives.
Specialized nature of the equipment may limit the pool of qualified contractors, necessitating sole-source awards.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a known entity with expertise in missile systems.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure includes incentives for performance.
Contract duration is relatively short, allowing for periodic re-evaluation of needs.
The work supports a critical national defense asset.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically for the maintenance and repair of guided missiles. The aerospace and defense industry is characterized by high technological complexity and significant government investment. Spending in this area is often concentrated among a few specialized contractors due to the unique requirements and security clearances involved. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish precisely due to the proprietary nature of missile systems and the specialized services required.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside. Given the sole-source nature and the specialized technical requirements for maintaining strategic missile systems, it is unlikely that small businesses would be primary awardees or significant subcontractors on this specific contract. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess any indirect impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates close monitoring of costs and performance to ensure award fees are justified. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature, but contract awards are generally reported.

Related Government Programs

Trident II Missile System Support
Strategic Weapons Systems Maintenance
Naval Ordnance and Weapon Systems
Defense Research and Development Contracts
Guided Missile Maintenance and Repair

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition.
Potential for cost overruns in CPAF contracts.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in provided data.
Specialized nature of defense contracts can limit transparency.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.2 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. 200507!00A187!1700!N00030!STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003004C0035 !A!N! !Y! !P00002!20040426!20061231!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!THE DRAPER CHARLES STARK LABOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQ !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDLESEX !MASS !+000001521288!N!N!000000000000!J014!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/GUIDED MISSILES !S1 !SERVICES !178 !TRIDENT II MISSILE !541710!E! !3! ! !C! ! !202

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 (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-04-26. End: 2006-12-31.

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

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and awarded to 'THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.'. While the specific justification is not detailed in the provided snippet, sole-source awards are typically justified when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the government's needs. This could be due to unique technical expertise, proprietary knowledge of the system, or urgent requirements where competition is not feasible. For a critical system like the Trident II missile, it's plausible that The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory possesses unique capabilities or intellectual property essential for its maintenance and repair, making competition impractical or detrimental to national security.

How does the $26.2 million contract value compare to historical spending on similar maintenance and repair services for the Trident II missile?

The provided data shows a contract value of $26,200,000 for the period of April 26, 2004, to December 31, 2006 (approximately 2.6 years). To compare this to historical spending, one would need access to historical contract databases for the Trident II missile program. Without that data, it's difficult to benchmark. However, the annual value averages around $10 million ($26.2M / 2.6 years). Given the strategic importance and complexity of the Trident II system, this annual figure might be considered reasonable, but a definitive comparison requires historical context of similar maintenance and repair contracts awarded over the system's lifecycle.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract for this type of service?

Cost Plus Award Fee contracts, like this one, carry inherent risks. The primary risk is that the contractor may incur higher costs than necessary if the government's oversight and performance evaluation are not rigorous. While the 'award fee' component is intended to incentivize superior performance, it can also lead to disputes over performance metrics and fee determination. If the government's baseline cost estimates are inaccurate or if the performance standards are not clearly defined and measurable, the total cost to the government could exceed what might have been achieved under a fixed-price contract. Effective management and clear communication of expectations are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What is the significance of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541710 for this contract?

The NAICS code 541710 designates 'Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences.' This code indicates that the primary purpose of this contract, despite being for 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/GUIDED MISSILES,' involves a significant research and development component. This could include analyzing system performance, developing improved maintenance procedures, troubleshooting complex technical issues, or contributing to the ongoing lifecycle management of the missile system that requires R&D expertise. It suggests the work goes beyond routine upkeep and involves technical problem-solving and innovation.

What does the contract's duration of approximately 979 days imply about the nature of the services provided?

The contract duration of 979 days (from April 26, 2004, to December 31, 2006) suggests a medium-term engagement for the maintenance and repair of the Trident II missile system. This duration is long enough to cover significant maintenance cycles or address complex technical challenges that require sustained effort, but not so long as to preclude periodic reviews or adjustments. It implies that the services are ongoing and essential for maintaining the operational readiness of the missile system over a defined period, rather than a one-time fix or a short-term project.

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 AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Address: 555 TECHNOLOGY SQUARE, CAMBRIDGE, MA, 02139

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