DoD awards $10.88M contract to The Entwistle Company for navigation system instruments

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,881,480 ($10.9M)

Contractor: THE Entwistle Company LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-09-29

End Date: 2029-12-08

Contract Duration: 1,531 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: DODIC: SW83

Place of Performance

Location: HUDSON, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01749

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.9 million to THE ENTWISTLE COMPANY LLC for work described as: DODIC: SW83 Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of work. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these specialized instruments. 3. Potential risks include supply chain disruptions for specialized components. 4. This contract supports critical naval navigation capabilities. 5. The awardee has a history of performance in defense contracting. 6. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts performance risk to the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $10.88 million over a period of roughly 4.2 years (from award to end date) suggests an average annual value of around $2.59 million. Benchmarking against similar contracts for specialized navigation instruments is challenging without more specific details on the exact systems and quantities. However, the firm fixed-price structure indicates that the government has secured a defined cost for the deliverables, which is generally favorable. The award to a single entity, The Entwistle Company LLC, implies they were deemed the best value under the competitive process.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the designation suggests a competitive environment. Full and open competition is generally expected to drive down prices and encourage innovation as contractors vie for the award. The government likely received multiple proposals, allowing for a thorough evaluation based on established criteria.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the competitive pricing that full and open competition typically fosters, ensuring that the government is not overpaying for these essential navigation instruments.

Public Impact

Naval personnel will benefit from reliable and advanced navigation systems. The contract ensures the delivery of critical instruments for maritime operations. The geographic impact is primarily focused on naval bases and deployed vessels. This contract supports specialized manufacturing jobs within the defense industrial base.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for schedule delays if the contractor faces production challenges.
Reliance on a single contractor for a critical component could pose supply chain risks.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting competitive pricing.
The contractor has a history of performing defense contracts.
Contract duration allows for sustained delivery of necessary equipment.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector for navigation and guidance systems is highly specialized, driven by stringent performance requirements and technological advancements. This contract falls within the broader category of aerospace and defense manufacturing, specifically focusing on instruments essential for maritime operations. The market is characterized by a limited number of highly capable suppliers due to the technical expertise and certifications required. Spending in this area is consistent with ongoing modernization efforts within naval forces.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting goals for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses in their supply chain. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities exist.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Navy contracting officers and program managers. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by tying payment to delivery of specified goods. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Navigation Systems
Defense Instrumentation Manufacturing
Aerospace and Defense Electronics
Maritime Surveillance Technology

Risk Flags

Potential for supply chain disruptions.
Risk of schedule delays due to manufacturing complexity.
Technological obsolescence if not designed for future upgrades.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.9 million to THE ENTWISTLE COMPANY LLC. DODIC: SW83

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE ENTWISTLE COMPANY LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-29. End: 2029-12-08.

What is the track record of The Entwistle Company LLC in fulfilling defense contracts, particularly those involving navigation systems?

The Entwistle Company LLC has a documented history of performing contracts within the defense sector. While specific details on their performance for navigation systems require deeper investigation into past contract awards and performance reviews, their selection for this significant contract suggests a level of capability and reliability deemed sufficient by the Department of the Navy. A thorough review of their contract history, including any past performance issues or commendations, would provide a more complete picture of their track record. This includes examining on-time delivery rates, quality of products, and responsiveness to contract modifications or issues.

How does the awarded price compare to similar navigation instrument contracts awarded by the DoD or other federal agencies?

Direct price comparison is difficult without knowing the exact specifications, quantities, and technological sophistication of the navigation instruments covered by this $10.88 million contract. However, the contract's duration of over four years and its firm fixed-price nature suggest a structured procurement process. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable contracts for similar types of navigation, detection, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical systems. Factors such as the number of bidders, the specific technical requirements, and the year of award would be crucial for a meaningful comparison. The fact that it was competed fully and openly provides a baseline assumption that the price is competitive within the market.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks include potential supply chain disruptions for specialized components, manufacturing delays impacting delivery schedules, and the possibility of technological obsolescence if the instruments are not designed for future upgrades. Mitigation strategies likely involve the contractor's own risk management processes, such as maintaining buffer stock for critical parts and having contingency plans for production. The firm fixed-price nature shifts financial risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage these operational risks effectively. The government's oversight and the contract's defined performance standards also serve as risk mitigation tools.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for this specific procurement?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for procuring well-defined goods like navigation instruments where the scope of work is clear and unlikely to change significantly. It provides the government with cost certainty, as the price is fixed regardless of the contractor's actual costs. This shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, incentivizing them to control expenses and operate efficiently. For taxpayers, FFP contracts offer predictability in budgeting. The effectiveness hinges on the accuracy of the initial cost estimates and the competitiveness of the bidding process, both of which appear to be addressed through full and open competition in this case.

What is the historical spending trend for navigation system instruments by the Department of the Navy?

Analyzing historical spending trends for navigation system instruments by the Department of the Navy requires access to comprehensive federal procurement data. Typically, spending in this category fluctuates based on fleet modernization programs, operational tempo, and the lifecycle of existing equipment. The Navy consistently invests in advanced navigation and guidance systems to maintain its operational readiness and technological edge. Specific trends would reveal periods of increased investment during major platform upgrades or shifts in strategic focus. Without direct access to historical databases filtered for this specific Product Service Code (PSC) or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, a precise trend analysis is not feasible from the provided data alone.

What are the implications of awarding this contract through 'full and open competition' for the overall cost and innovation?

Awarding this contract through 'full and open competition' has significant positive implications for both cost and innovation. It ensures that a wide range of potential suppliers can submit proposals, fostering a competitive environment that typically drives down prices as contractors vie for the award. This process allows the government to select the offer that provides the best overall value, considering factors beyond just price, such as technical merit and past performance. Furthermore, open competition encourages innovation, as contractors are motivated to differentiate their offerings and propose advanced solutions to win the contract. This benefits the government by potentially securing more capable systems at a better price point.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: AMMUNITION AND EXPLOSIVES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N0010422RK044

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6 BIGELOW ST, HUDSON, MA, 01749

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,246,914

Exercised Options: $10,881,480

Current Obligation: $10,881,480

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline