DoD's $108.8M Engineering Services Contract Awarded to Charles Stark Draper Laboratory

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $108,779,062 ($108.8M)

Contractor: THE Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-12-29

End Date: 2006-09-30

Contract Duration: 275 days

Daily Burn Rate: $395.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE

Sector: Defense

Place of Performance

Location: CAMBRIDGE, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02139

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $108.8 million to THE CHARLES STARK DRAPER LABORATORY, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Significant contract value of over $108 million awarded for engineering services. 2. Sole-source award to The Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, Inc. raises competition concerns. 3. Contract type is Cost Plus Incentive, which can lead to cost overruns. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Navy, indicating a defense sector focus.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value is substantial. Without competitive bidding, it's difficult to assess if the pricing is optimal or reflects market rates for similar engineering services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers as there was no market pressure to offer the best price.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition for a contract of this magnitude means taxpayers may not have received the best value, potentially leading to overspending.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be paying a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. The specific engineering services provided are critical to defense operations, impacting national security. The long-term implications of sole-source awards on innovation and cost-efficiency in the defense sector are a concern.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus contract type
Lack of transparency in pricing

Positive Signals

Specific expertise likely required
Potential for critical defense support

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under engineering services within the defense sector. Spending benchmarks for such specialized services can vary widely, but the lack of competition makes direct comparison difficult.

Small Business Impact

The awardee is a large, established laboratory, and there is no indication that small businesses were involved in this specific sole-source contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

The sole-source nature of this award warrants scrutiny to ensure the Department of the Navy adequately justified the lack of competition and that the pricing is reasonable and represents fair value.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Navy Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competition
Cost-plus contract type introduces cost uncertainty
Potential for inflated pricing
Limited transparency on service justification
No small business participation indicated

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $108.8 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 (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $108.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-12-29. End: 2006-09-30.

What specific engineering services were deemed so unique that they necessitated a sole-source award, and what was the justification for not seeking competitive proposals?

The justification for a sole-source award typically centers on the unique capabilities, proprietary knowledge, or critical nature of the services that only a specific contractor can provide. Without access to the contract's justification documentation, it's impossible to detail the exact services. However, such justifications are crucial for ensuring taxpayer funds are used appropriately and that competition is only bypassed when truly necessary for national security or essential government functions.

How does the Cost Plus Incentive (CPI) contract type potentially impact the final cost and the contractor's incentive to control expenses compared to fixed-price contracts?

Cost Plus Incentive (CPI) contracts allow for reimbursement of actual costs plus a fee that is adjusted based on performance against targets (e.g., cost, schedule, performance). While intended to incentivize efficiency, this structure can still lead to higher final costs than fixed-price contracts if targets are not met or if the base cost estimates are inaccurate. The contractor has an incentive to control costs to earn a higher fee, but the government still bears the risk of cost overruns.

What is the potential long-term impact of relying on sole-source contracts for critical engineering services on the broader defense industrial base and innovation?

Over-reliance on sole-source contracts can stifle innovation and competition within the defense industrial base. It may discourage new entrants and limit the development of alternative solutions or cost-saving technologies. This can lead to a less resilient and potentially more expensive supply chain for critical defense capabilities over the long term, as established contractors may face less pressure to adapt and improve.

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 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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline