DoD's Navy awards $13.3M for technical insertion hardware, with Laurel Technologies Partnership securing the deal

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,321,553 ($13.3M)

Contractor: Laurel Technologies Partnership

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-07-29

End Date: 2026-07-28

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $36.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) TECHNICAL INSERTION HARDWARE (TIH) TI-20/22/24 ENGINEERING YEAR CY7 TASK BOOK

Place of Performance

Location: JOHNSTOWN, CAMBRIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 15904

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.3 million to LAUREL TECHNOLOGIES PARTNERSHIP for work described as: STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) TECHNICAL INSERTION HARDWARE (TIH) TI-20/22/24 ENGINEERING YEAR CY7 TASK BOOK Key points: 1. The contract focuses on engineering tasks for search, detection, navigation, guidance, and related systems. 2. This award represents a single delivery order under a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), which aligns costs with performance incentives. 4. The duration of this specific task order is one year, ending in July 2026. 5. The primary agency is the Department of the Navy, a major component of the Department of Defense. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334511 indicates a focus on instrument manufacturing.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific $13.3 million delivery order is challenging without knowing the scope of the underlying IDIQ contract and the specific engineering tasks involved. The CPIF contract type suggests an effort to control costs while incentivizing performance, but the final cost will depend on actual expenses and achieved incentives. Comparing this to similar engineering support contracts for naval systems would provide better context for value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. This competitive process is generally expected to yield fair market prices and encourage innovation. The specific number of bidders is not provided, which limits a deeper analysis of the competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition suggests that taxpayers benefit from a potentially more efficient allocation of resources and competitive pricing, as multiple companies vied for the contract.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from the engineering services to maintain and upgrade its critical search, detection, and navigation systems. This contract supports the development and integration of advanced hardware for naval platforms. The geographic impact is primarily within Pennsylvania, where Laurel Technologies Partnership is located, but the ultimate beneficiaries are naval operations globally. The contract supports skilled engineering jobs within the defense industrial base.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific details on the engineering tasks limits the ability to assess the true value for money.
The CPIF contract type, while incentivizing, can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
The duration of the task order is relatively short (one year), potentially leading to recurring contract actions and administrative overhead.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
The contract supports critical defense systems, aligning with national security objectives.
The contractor is based in Pennsylvania, potentially supporting regional economic development.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense electronics and systems manufacturing sector. The NAICS code 334511 covers companies involved in producing instruments for search, detection, navigation, and guidance. This sector is characterized by high R&D investment, stringent quality requirements, and long product lifecycles, often involving specialized engineering services. Spending in this area is crucial for maintaining technological superiority in defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Laurel Technologies Partnership is likely a large business. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses, which is a missed opportunity to assess the contract's impact on the small business defense ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. The CPIF structure necessitates close monitoring of costs and performance against established incentives. Transparency regarding the specific engineering tasks and performance metrics would enhance accountability. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Systems Engineering Support
Defense Hardware Manufacturing
Navigation and Guidance Systems
Search and Detection Technology
Department of Defense R&D Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPIF structure
Limited transparency on specific performance metrics
Lack of small business subcontracting details

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.3 million to LAUREL TECHNOLOGIES PARTNERSHIP. STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW) TECHNICAL INSERTION HARDWARE (TIH) TI-20/22/24 ENGINEERING YEAR CY7 TASK BOOK

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LAUREL TECHNOLOGIES PARTNERSHIP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-07-29. End: 2026-07-28.

What is the historical spending pattern for this specific Statement of Work (SOW) or similar engineering tasks with Laurel Technologies Partnership or other contractors?

Analyzing historical spending for this SOW or comparable engineering tasks is crucial for benchmarking. Without access to historical contract data for this specific SOW or similar 'Technical Insertion Hardware' engineering efforts, it's difficult to establish a baseline. However, the Department of the Navy frequently awards contracts for engineering services related to system upgrades and maintenance. If Laurel Technologies Partnership has a track record with the Navy on similar tasks, reviewing past awards, their values, and performance would reveal trends. For instance, if previous one-year task orders for similar engineering work averaged $10-12 million, then the current $13.3 million award might be slightly higher, warranting further investigation into the scope or market conditions. Conversely, if previous efforts were significantly more expensive, this award could represent good value. A comprehensive review would involve searching contract databases for related awards over the past 3-5 years.

How does the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure compare to other contract types used for similar engineering services in the defense sector?

The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract type is often employed when the government desires to incentivize contractor efficiency and cost control while acknowledging that precise cost estimation is difficult. In CPIF contracts, the final profit is adjusted based on whether the final cost is below or above a target cost, and performance objectives are met. This contrasts with Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), where profit is fixed regardless of cost, or Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), where the contractor bears all cost risk. For complex engineering services like those described, where technical challenges and R&D elements may exist, CPIF offers a balance. It encourages the contractor to manage costs effectively to earn a higher fee, while the government benefits from sharing in cost savings or overruns. However, it requires robust government oversight to ensure the target costs and performance metrics are realistic and that the contractor is not unduly incentivized to inflate costs.

What are the specific performance metrics and target costs associated with this CPIF contract, and how are they benchmarked?

The specific performance metrics and target costs for this CPIF contract are not publicly detailed in the provided data. These would typically be outlined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and associated exhibits. Performance metrics might include factors like on-time delivery of engineering designs, successful integration of hardware, achievement of specific technical performance standards (e.g., signal-to-noise ratio improvements, processing speed), and adherence to quality control procedures. Target costs are negotiated between the government and the contractor, often based on historical data, industry benchmarks, and detailed cost proposals. Benchmarking these metrics involves comparing them against similar contracts awarded by the Navy or other DoD components for comparable engineering services. Without access to the contract's detailed clauses, a precise assessment of their adequacy and fairness is not possible.

What is Laurel Technologies Partnership's track record with the Department of the Navy and for similar technical insertion hardware contracts?

Laurel Technologies Partnership's track record with the Department of the Navy and for similar technical insertion hardware contracts is a key indicator of their capability and reliability. A review of federal procurement databases would reveal their past performance, including the types of contracts awarded, their values, and any reported performance issues or accolades. Companies specializing in 'Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing' often have long-standing relationships with naval agencies due to the specialized nature of the work. Assessing their history with cost-plus contracts, on-time delivery rates, and successful completion of complex engineering tasks would provide insight into their suitability for this current award. Positive past performance suggests a lower risk, while a history of issues might raise concerns.

How does the $13.3 million value of this delivery order compare to the overall spending on Technical Insertion Hardware (TIH) by the Department of the Navy?

The $13.3 million value of this specific delivery order represents a component of the Navy's broader investment in Technical Insertion Hardware (TIH). To contextualize this amount, one would need to examine the Navy's total annual spending on TIH or related engineering services over several fiscal years. The Navy, like other branches of the DoD, invests significantly in upgrading existing platforms with new technologies to maintain operational effectiveness. If the Navy's total annual budget for TIH engineering and hardware integration runs into hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, then this $13.3 million award appears as a relatively modest, albeit important, task order. Conversely, if the total TIH budget is smaller, this award would represent a more substantial portion. Understanding the scale of the overall TIH program is essential for assessing the significance of this particular contract.

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: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE (V)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Leonardo SPA

Address: 246 AIRPORT RD, JOHNSTOWN, PA, 15904

Business Categories: Category Business, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,462,732

Exercised Options: $20,462,732

Current Obligation: $13,321,553

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $248,727

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0025319D0004

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline