DoD awards $26.9M for Guided Missile Components to Charles Stark Draper Laboratory

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,930,304 ($26.9M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-04-10

End Date: 2010-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,726 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200607!06A138!1700!N00030!STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003006C0002 !A!N! !N! ! !20060410!20060930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQ !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDLESEX !MASS !+000026928700!N!N!000000000000!1420!GUIDED MISSILE COMPONENTS !A2 !MISSILE AND SPACE SYSTEMS !178 !TRIDENT II MISSILE !541710!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!N!V!1!001!N!1A!Z!Y!Z! ! !N!Z!N! ! ! ! ! !A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! !1700!N00030!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: CAMBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.9 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: 200607!06A138!1700!N00030!STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003006C0002 !A!N! !N! ! !20060410!20060930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQ !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDD… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for Guided Missile Components, a critical defense system. 2. The sole-source award to Charles Stark Draper Laboratory raises questions about competition. 3. Research and Development in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences is the primary NAICS code. 4. The contract value is $26.9 million over a period of 1726 days.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $26.9 million for guided missile components is significant. Without comparable contract data for similar components or services, a precise pricing assessment is difficult. However, the cost-plus-incentive pricing structure suggests potential for cost overruns if not managed carefully.

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. This significantly limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers. The justification for sole-source procurement needs to be thoroughly reviewed.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition in this sole-source award may result in higher costs for taxpayers compared to a competitively bid contract.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be paying a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. The strategic importance of guided missile components means this contract directly impacts national security. The long duration of the contract (1726 days) requires sustained oversight to ensure performance and cost control.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competition and price discovery.
Cost-plus-incentive contract type can lead to cost overruns.
Long contract duration requires diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Award to a known entity with expertise in the field.
Contract supports critical defense systems.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically for research and development related to missile systems. Defense spending on R&D for advanced weaponry is substantial, and contracts like this are typical for specialized technological development.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that small businesses were involved in this sole-source contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. Future solicitations should explore opportunities for small business participation where feasible.

Oversight & Accountability

The sole-source nature of this award necessitates robust oversight from the Department of Defense to ensure the contractor is meeting performance requirements and managing costs effectively. Regular reviews of progress and expenditures are crucial.

Related Government Programs

Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated costs.
Cost-plus-incentive contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Sole-source awards require strong justification and oversight.
Long contract duration increases the potential for scope creep or performance issues if not managed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.9 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC.. 200607!06A138!1700!N00030!STRATEGIC SYSTEMS PROGRAMS !N0003006C0002 !A!N! !N! ! !20060410!20060930!066587478!066587478!066587478!N!THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABOR!555 TECHNOLOGY SQ !CAMBRIDGE !MA!02139!11000!017!25!CAMBRIDGE !MIDDLESEX !MASS !+000026928700!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 $26.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-04-10. End: 2010-12-31.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and has it been adequately documented and approved?

The justification for a sole-source award typically involves unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent needs where only one source can fulfill the requirement. For this contract, the specific justification needs to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure it is valid and that all necessary approvals were obtained. Without this information, it's difficult to assess if taxpayer funds are being used efficiently.

How will the Department of Defense ensure cost control and prevent overruns under this cost-plus-incentive contract, given the lack of competition?

Effective oversight is paramount. The DoD must implement stringent monitoring of the contractor's costs, performance metrics, and adherence to the incentive structure. Regular audits, performance reviews, and clear communication channels with the contractor are essential to manage risks and ensure value for money. Benchmarking against industry standards, where possible, can also help identify potential cost anomalies.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how will their achievement be measured to ensure the effectiveness of the guided missile components?

Key performance indicators would likely focus on technical specifications, reliability, delivery timelines, and adherence to quality standards for the guided missile components. The DoD will need to establish clear, measurable KPIs and a robust system for tracking and verifying the contractor's performance against these metrics. Independent testing and validation of the components will be crucial to confirm their effectiveness and readiness for deployment.

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

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 555 TECHNOLOGY SQ, CAMBRIDGE, MA, 90

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,510,450

Exercised Options: $27,510,450

Current Obligation: $26,930,304

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline