DoD awards $20.3M contract for search and navigation systems to iRobot Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,285,075 ($20.3M)

Contractor: Irobot Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-07-30

End Date: 2012-12-31

Contract Duration: 885 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: MK1 MOD1

Place of Performance

Location: BEDFORD, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01730

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.3 million to IROBOT CORPORATION for work described as: MK1 MOD1 Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating clear scope and cost expectations. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies and market exploration. 3. Awarded to a single vendor, iRobot Corporation, suggesting a potential lack of broader market engagement. 4. The duration of the contract (885 days) indicates a medium-term commitment for system provision. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334511 points to specialized manufacturing in navigation and guidance systems. 6. The contract's value is relatively modest within the broader defense procurement landscape.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $20.3 million for search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical systems is difficult to benchmark without specific system details. As a sole-source award, there is no direct comparison to other bids. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests the government aimed to control costs, but the absence of competition limits the ability to assess if the price represents optimal value for money compared to what a competitive process might yield. Further analysis would require understanding the specific technological requirements and market availability of comparable systems.

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 vendor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or when there are urgent needs that preclude a competitive solicitation. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery and innovation that typically arise from a bidding process. This can sometimes lead to higher prices than might be achieved in a competitive environment.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there is a reduced opportunity to ensure the most cost-effective solution was secured. The absence of competitive pressure may result in a higher overall expenditure for the required systems.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense, which will receive advanced search and navigation systems. These systems are crucial for enhancing operational capabilities in areas such as search and rescue, reconnaissance, and tactical navigation. The geographic impact is likely global, supporting military operations wherever deployed. The contract supports specialized manufacturing jobs within iRobot Corporation and its supply chain.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Sole-source award limits opportunities for innovation from a wider range of suppliers.
Dependence on a single supplier could create future supply chain risks.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Award to an established company like iRobot suggests a degree of confidence in their capabilities.
Specialized systems are critical for defense operations.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector relies heavily on advanced technology for navigation, search, and detection systems. Companies like iRobot Corporation operate within a niche market focused on robotics and intelligent systems. The market for such specialized defense equipment is characterized by high barriers to entry due to technological complexity and stringent qualification requirements. Spending in this area is driven by the need for technological superiority and operational effectiveness, with contracts often being long-term and high-value.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. The award to iRobot Corporation, a company of significant size, suggests that the focus was on specialized capabilities rather than broad small business participation. This contract is unlikely to have a direct positive impact on the small business ecosystem unless iRobot actively engages them in its supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract simplifies some aspects of financial oversight by establishing a set cost. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases, but detailed performance metrics and specific oversight activities are often not publicly disclosed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense Navigation Systems
Robotics in Defense
Search and Detection Equipment
Military Guidance Systems

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.3 million to IROBOT CORPORATION. MK1 MOD1

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IROBOT CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-07-30. End: 2012-12-31.

What specific search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical systems were procured under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the systems procured. The contract falls under NAICS code 334511, which covers 'Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing.' This broad classification suggests the systems could range from advanced sensors and radar equipment to integrated navigation suites or unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) guidance components. Without further details, it is difficult to ascertain the precise technological capabilities or applications of these systems. Further investigation into contract line item numbers (CLINs) or technical exhibits would be necessary to identify the specific equipment.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' classifying it as sole-source. Common justifications for sole-source awards include the unique capabilities or proprietary technology of a specific contractor, urgent and compelling needs that preclude a competitive process, or situations where only one responsible source exists. For iRobot Corporation, this could be due to specialized robotic technology, patented algorithms for navigation, or existing integration with DoD platforms that would make a competitive procurement impractical or excessively costly. The specific rationale would typically be documented by the contracting agency at the time of award.

How does the $20.3 million contract value compare to similar procurements for navigation systems within the Department of Defense?

Benchmarking the $20.3 million contract value requires comparing it to similar procurements for navigation and guidance systems within the DoD. However, the provided data lacks the specificity to make a direct comparison. The value is moderate, not exceptionally large or small, within the context of defense spending. Without knowing the exact nature of the systems (e.g., software, hardware, integrated platforms, quantity), it's challenging to find precise comparables. Broader categories of 'navigation systems' can range from millions to billions of dollars depending on complexity, scale, and technological advancement. A more detailed analysis would involve searching for contracts with similar NAICS codes and system descriptions.

What is iRobot Corporation's track record with the Department of Defense, particularly regarding contracts of this nature?

iRobot Corporation has a history of providing robotic systems to various government agencies, including the Department of Defense. While known for its consumer robotics, its Government and Industrial Robots division has supplied unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) and other specialized robotic solutions for military and security applications. The provided data shows this specific contract (DCA) awarded on July 30, 2010, with an end date of December 31, 2012, for $20.3 million. This indicates a prior engagement with the DoD for systems related to search, detection, and navigation. A comprehensive review would involve examining their full contract history with the DoD for performance, delivery, and any past issues.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a contract of this size and type on a sole-source basis?

The primary risk of a sole-source award is the potential for inflated pricing due to the absence of competitive pressure, leading to reduced value for taxpayer money. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes dependent on a single supplier, potentially limiting future options and flexibility. Innovation may be stifled as other companies are not incentivized to develop competing solutions. Furthermore, without competition, there's less external validation of the contractor's technical capabilities and proposed solutions, potentially increasing the risk of performance issues or unmet requirements if the sole-source justification was not robust.

What is the historical spending trend for search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical systems within the DoD?

Historical spending on systems within NAICS code 334511 (Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing) by the Department of Defense is substantial and generally trends upwards, driven by modernization efforts and evolving operational requirements. While this specific $20.3 million contract represents a single data point from 2010-2012, the overall DoD investment in these technologies is significant. Factors influencing spending include advancements in sensor technology, AI, autonomous systems, and the need for enhanced situational awareness in complex environments. Analyzing broader DoD budgets and specific program spending would reveal trends in areas like ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance), electronic warfare, and precision guidance.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 8 CROSBY DR, BEDFORD, MA, 06

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Federally Funded Research and Development Corp, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,285,075

Exercised Options: $20,285,075

Current Obligation: $20,285,075

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline