Naval Ship Systems Engineering contract awarded to TREADWELL CORPORATION for $12.5M, highlighting potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,565,426 ($12.6M)

Contractor: Treadwell Corporation (delaware)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-03-31

End Date: 2011-01-29

Contract Duration: 1,765 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200606!370327!1700!N65540!NAVAL SHIP SYSTEMS ENGINEERING !N6554006C0014 !A!N! !N! ! !20060331!20080930!805817020!805817020!805817020!N!TREADWELL CORPORATION !341 RAILROAD ST !THOMASTON !CT!06787!75660!005!09!THOMASTON !LITCHFIELD !CONN !+000012589862!N!N!000012589862!2090!MISCELLANEOUS SHIP AND MARINE EQUIPMENT !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !333999!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!N!J!1!001!N!1A!Z!Y!A! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !A! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! !1700!N65540!0002! !

Place of Performance

Location: THOMASTON, LITCHFIELD County, CONNECTICUT, 06787

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.6 million to TREADWELL CORPORATION (DELAWARE) for work described as: 200606!370327!1700!N65540!NAVAL SHIP SYSTEMS ENGINEERING !N6554006C0014 !A!N! !N! ! !20060331!20080930!805817020!805817020!805817020!N!TREADWELL CORPORATION !341 RAILROAD ST !THOMASTON !CT!06787!75660!005!09!THOMASTON !LITC… Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its duration and scope, suggesting a need for further cost analysis. 2. Limited competition or sole-source nature of the award may have impacted pricing and overall value for money. 3. The contract's duration of over 4 years warrants scrutiny regarding performance and potential for cost overruns. 4. The specific nature of 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment' requires deeper understanding to benchmark against similar procurements. 5. The absence of a competitive bidding process raises questions about price discovery and taxpayer benefit. 6. The contractor's track record and past performance on similar contracts would provide crucial context for assessing risk.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total contract value of $12,565,426 over approximately 4.8 years (from March 31, 2006, to January 29, 2011) averages to roughly $2.6 million per year. Without specific details on the 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment' procured, it is difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the lack of competition suggests that the government may not have secured the most favorable pricing. Further analysis of the specific deliverables and market rates for such equipment is needed to definitively assess value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning TREADWELL CORPORATION was the only bidder considered. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple vendors submitting proposals. While sole-source awards can be justified in specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities, urgent needs), they generally lead to less price competition and potentially higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A sole-source award means taxpayers did not benefit from the price reductions and innovation that typically arise from a competitive bidding environment. This could result in a higher overall expenditure for the goods or services received.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is TREADWELL CORPORATION, which received a significant federal award. The contract supports the Naval Ship Systems Engineering command, contributing to the maintenance and readiness of naval assets. The geographic impact is centered in Thomaston, Connecticut, where TREADWELL CORPORATION is located, potentially supporting local employment and economic activity. The services delivered fall under 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment,' indicating a role in supplying specialized components or services for naval vessels.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have led to inflated pricing.
Sole-source award raises concerns about transparency and potential for missed cost savings.
The broad category of 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment' lacks specificity, making performance and value assessment challenging.
Contract duration of over 4 years without clear performance metrics could indicate potential for scope creep or cost overruns.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded to a single entity, potentially simplifying contract management.
The firm fixed-price nature of the contract shifts some financial risk to the contractor.
The award supports critical naval engineering functions, contributing to national defense.

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls under the 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment' category, which is part of the broader industrial base supporting defense and maritime operations. This sector often involves specialized manufacturing and engineering services. Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without more specific details on the equipment or services provided, but it represents a portion of the Department of Defense's significant spending on ship maintenance, repair, and component acquisition.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides or subcontracting opportunities. As a sole-source award, it is unlikely that small businesses were specifically targeted for participation. Further investigation would be needed to determine if TREADWELL CORPORATION has any small business subcontracting plans associated with this award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). As a firm fixed-price contract, the primary oversight would focus on ensuring delivery of the specified goods or services. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Ship Systems Engineering
Shipbuilding and Repair
Defense Procurement
Marine Equipment Manufacturing

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
Lack of detailed scope makes value assessment difficult.
Potential for inflated costs due to absence of competition.
Contract duration may exceed actual need or introduce risk.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.6 million to TREADWELL CORPORATION (DELAWARE). 200606!370327!1700!N65540!NAVAL SHIP SYSTEMS ENGINEERING !N6554006C0014 !A!N! !N! ! !20060331!20080930!805817020!805817020!805817020!N!TREADWELL CORPORATION !341 RAILROAD ST !THOMASTON !CT!06787!75660!005!09!THOMASTON !LITCHFIELD !CONN !+000012589862!N!N!000012589862!2090!MISCELLANEOUS SHIP AND MARINE EQUIPMENT !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !333999!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TREADWELL CORPORATION (DELAWARE).

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-03-31. End: 2011-01-29.

What specific 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment' was procured under this contract, and what was the justification for a sole-source award?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment' under the Product Service Code (PSC) '2090'. However, the specific items or services procured are not detailed. The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis (FAIR OPPORTUNITY NOT GIVEN). Justifications for sole-source awards typically include unique capabilities, urgent and compelling needs, or situations where only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services. Without access to the contract's Justification and Approval (J&A) document, the precise reasons for bypassing competition remain unknown. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to assess if the sole-source decision was appropriate and if it resulted in fair pricing for the government.

How does the total contract value of $12.5 million compare to similar procurements for naval ship equipment?

Benchmarking the $12.5 million contract value is challenging without knowing the exact nature of the 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment' procured. The PSC '2090' is very broad. If the contract was for routine maintenance parts or standard components, the value might be considered high for a roughly 4.8-year period, especially given the lack of competition. However, if it involved highly specialized, custom-engineered systems, unique repair services, or critical long-lead-time items for naval vessels, the price could be more justifiable. A detailed comparison would require identifying contracts with identical or very similar PSCs and scopes of work, ideally awarded competitively, to establish a market price baseline.

What is TREADWELL CORPORATION's track record with the Department of Defense, particularly on similar sole-source contracts?

The provided data indicates TREADWELL CORPORATION (DELAWARE) was the contractor. To assess their track record, a review of their contract history with the Department of Defense (DoD) would be necessary. This would involve examining past performance evaluations, any documented issues or disputes, and their experience with similar types of equipment or services. Understanding their history, especially on other sole-source awards, could reveal patterns of performance, pricing behavior, and reliability. A positive track record might lend some confidence to the award, while a history of issues would heighten concerns about risk and value.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract awarded on a sole-source basis for marine equipment?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, which is generally favorable for the government. However, when awarded on a sole-source basis, this benefit is diminished. The primary risk is that without competition, the contractor may have less incentive to offer the lowest possible price, potentially leading to inflated costs for the government. Additionally, the lack of competitive pressure could reduce the contractor's motivation to innovate or improve efficiency. For 'Miscellaneous Ship and Marine Equipment,' there's also a risk that the government might not receive the best available technology or the most suitable equipment if alternatives were not explored due to the sole-source nature of the award.

How has federal spending in the 'All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing' sector (NAICS 333999) trended, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

The NAICS code 333999, 'All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing,' encompasses a wide array of machinery production. Federal spending in this sector can fluctuate based on defense needs, infrastructure projects, and other government requirements. This specific $12.5 million contract, awarded in 2006, represents a single transaction within this broad sector. To understand its place in the trend, one would need to analyze historical spending data for NAICS 333999 by the Department of Defense and other agencies. This contract appears to be a specific procurement for naval applications rather than a broad investment in the general machinery manufacturing sector. Its significance would depend on the volume and value of other contracts within this NAICS code during the same period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing › All Other Miscellaneous General Purpose Machinery Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: SHIP AND MARINE EQUIPMENT

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: 341 RAILROAD ST, THOMASTON, CT, 05

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline