DoD's $6.45M Laurel Technologies contract for lab hardware shows strong competition and a 181-day duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,452,074 ($6.5M)

Contractor: Laurel Technologies Partnership

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-09-30

End Date: 2026-03-30

Contract Duration: 181 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS INCENTIVE FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TI-26 LAB HARDWARE WAVE I

Place of Performance

Location: JOHNSTOWN, CAMBRIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 15904

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $6.5 million to LAUREL TECHNOLOGIES PARTNERSHIP for work described as: TI-26 LAB HARDWARE WAVE I Key points: 1. The contract leverages full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 2. The delivery order structure indicates a need for specific, time-bound hardware acquisition. 3. The Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) pricing structure incentivizes contractor performance and cost control. 4. The contract duration of 181 days points to a focused, short-term requirement. 5. The small business set-aside status is false, indicating no specific preference for small businesses in this award. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334511 relates to instrument manufacturing, placing this in a specialized industrial sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $6.45 million for 181 days of delivery order work appears reasonable given the specialized nature of lab hardware. Benchmarking against similar contracts for advanced scientific instruments suggests that pricing is likely competitive due to the full and open competition. The CPIF contract type allows for performance-based adjustments, which can lead to better value if cost efficiencies are achieved by the contractor.

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 offers. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation generally implies a robust competitive process. This approach is designed to foster price discovery and ensure the government receives the best value by considering a wide range of potential suppliers.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition through potentially lower prices and access to innovative solutions from a broad market base.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from the acquisition of essential lab hardware for its research and development or operational needs. This contract supports the delivery of specialized search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical system instruments. The geographic impact is primarily within Pennsylvania, where Laurel Technologies Partnership is located, but the end-use of the hardware is likely defense-related. Workforce implications may include specialized manufacturing and technical roles at Laurel Technologies Partnership and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific bidder count limits full assessment of competitive intensity.
CPIF contract type requires careful monitoring to ensure cost targets are met.
Limited duration may indicate a need for follow-on contracts or evolving requirements.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, maximizing potential for competitive pricing.
CPIF structure incentivizes contractor efficiency and cost management.
Clear NAICS code provides insight into the specialized nature of the hardware.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on instruments for search, detection, navigation, and guidance systems. The market for such specialized defense-related hardware is often characterized by high technical barriers to entry and a limited number of qualified suppliers. Spending in this area is critical for maintaining technological superiority in defense capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within the Department of Defense's R&D and procurement budgets for advanced systems.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it indicate any specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this particular award. However, Laurel Technologies Partnership may engage small businesses as part of its supply chain, which would be determined by their internal procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are embedded within the Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) structure, which links contractor profit to performance and cost targets. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award notice, though detailed performance data may be less publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development Contracts
Naval Systems Procurement
Advanced Navigation and Guidance Systems
Search and Detection Equipment Manufacturing
Scientific and Technical Instrument Manufacturing

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns in CPIF contracts if not closely monitored.
Dependence on specific supplier capabilities for specialized hardware.
Risk of technology obsolescence with short-term contract durations.
Limited visibility into the number of competing offers.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $6.5 million to LAUREL TECHNOLOGIES PARTNERSHIP. TI-26 LAB HARDWARE WAVE I

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 $6.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-30. End: 2026-03-30.

What is the track record of Laurel Technologies Partnership with the Department of Defense?

Laurel Technologies Partnership has a history of contracting with the Department of Defense, as indicated by this award. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, contract history, and any reported issues or successes on previous DoD contracts. This includes reviewing data on on-time delivery, quality of goods/services, and adherence to contract terms. A deeper dive would involve analyzing the total value and duration of previous contracts, as well as the specific agencies and programs they have supported within the DoD. Without access to a comprehensive contract database or performance reports, a definitive statement on their overall track record is limited to the information available through this specific award and general knowledge of their existence as a contractor.

How does the $6.45 million value compare to similar DoD lab hardware procurements?

The $6.45 million value for this specific lab hardware procurement needs to be contextualized within the broader landscape of Department of Defense (DoD) spending. The DoD procures a vast array of equipment, from basic supplies to highly specialized, cutting-edge technology. For advanced scientific instruments, particularly those related to search, detection, and navigation systems, $6.45 million can represent a significant investment for a single delivery order. However, compared to major defense system development contracts or large-scale platform acquisitions, it is a relatively modest sum. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to benchmark against contracts with similar NAICS codes (e.g., 334511) and similar contract types (CPIF) awarded over a comparable timeframe. Factors such as the specific technical specifications, quantity, and technological sophistication of the hardware would heavily influence price points, making direct comparisons challenging without detailed specifications.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract for hardware?

The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contract for hardware procurement revolve around cost control and contractor motivation. While CPIF aims to incentivize efficiency by sharing cost savings or overruns between the government and the contractor, it can introduce complexities. A key risk is that the contractor might inflate initial cost estimates to ensure a higher potential profit margin, even with the incentive structure. Conversely, if the target cost is set too low or the incentive formula is poorly designed, the contractor may not be adequately motivated to control costs, or could even cut corners on quality to meet targets. For hardware, risks also include potential delays in production, supply chain disruptions affecting component costs, and the need for rigorous government oversight to verify incurred costs and ensure the incentive targets are fairly applied and achieved. The government must carefully define the performance metrics and cost objectives to mitigate these risks effectively.

How effective is 'full and open competition' in ensuring value for taxpayer money in specialized hardware acquisition?

Full and open competition is generally considered a highly effective mechanism for ensuring value for taxpayer money, especially in specialized hardware acquisition. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, it maximizes the pool of potential suppliers, thereby increasing the likelihood of receiving competitive pricing and innovative solutions. This broad competition drives down costs as contractors vie for the award. For specialized hardware, it also ensures that the government has access to the best available technologies and expertise. The process requires clear and detailed specifications to ensure apples-to-apples comparisons, but when executed properly, it fosters price discovery and reduces the risk of paying inflated prices due to limited market options. The transparency inherent in the process also aids in accountability.

What is the historical spending pattern for NAICS code 334511 by the Department of the Navy?

Historical spending patterns for NAICS code 334511 (Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing) by the Department of the Navy (DoN) would likely show consistent investment in advanced technological components and systems. The DoN relies heavily on sophisticated instrumentation for its naval operations, including sonar, radar, navigation systems, and related control and display equipment. Spending in this sector is driven by the need for technological superiority, platform modernization, and replacement of aging equipment. Analyzing historical data would reveal trends in contract values, types of instruments procured, and key contractors. It's probable that spending fluctuates based on defense budgets, specific program requirements (e.g., new ship construction, upgrades to existing fleets), and technological advancements. A detailed analysis would require access to historical contract databases to quantify total spending, identify major procurement programs, and track spending over multiple fiscal years.

What are the implications of the 181-day contract duration for the DoD's long-term strategy?

A contract duration of 181 days (approximately six months) for lab hardware suggests a short-term, focused requirement rather than a long-term strategic acquisition. This could imply several things for the DoD's strategy. Firstly, it might be for a specific project phase, a pilot program, or the fulfillment of an immediate operational need. Secondly, it could indicate that the hardware is part of a larger, multi-award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract where this is just one delivery order. Thirdly, it might suggest that the technology is rapidly evolving, and the DoD prefers shorter procurement cycles to avoid obsolescence. From a strategic perspective, relying heavily on short-duration contracts for critical hardware could pose risks if not managed carefully, potentially leading to gaps in supply or increased administrative burden if numerous short contracts are needed to fulfill a sustained requirement. It suggests agility but may lack the long-term planning stability of larger, multi-year commitments.

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: FIRE CONTROL EQPT.

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, Foreign Owned, Foreign-Owned and U.S.-Incorporated Business, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,683,437

Exercised Options: $6,683,437

Current Obligation: $6,452,074

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 5

Total Subaward Amount: $4,880,028

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0025324D5001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline