DoD's $16.4M contract for lab and air prototypes awarded to Stauder Consulting, Inc. without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,433,205 ($16.4M)

Contractor: Stauder Consulting, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-06-08

End Date: 2015-06-01

Contract Duration: 2,915 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: STRIKELINE-A LAB AND AIR PROTOTYPES

Place of Performance

Location: SAINT PETERS, ST. CHARLES County, MISSOURI, 63376, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.4 million to STAUDER CONSULTING, INC. for work described as: STRIKELINE-A LAB AND AIR PROTOTYPES Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize cost overruns. 2. Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and limited innovation. 3. The long duration (2915 days) suggests a complex or evolving project. 4. Awarded under the 'MISSOURI' designation, indicating a specific operational context. 5. The contract's performance period spans from 2007 to 2015, reflecting a past initiative.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its age and lack of competitive data. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for R&D, can lead to higher costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed rigorously. Without comparable sole-source awards or detailed cost breakdowns, assessing true value-for-money is difficult. The extended duration and significant dollar amount suggest a substantial undertaking, but the absence of competition limits the ability to confirm competitive pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning Stauder Consulting, Inc. was the only bidder considered. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple companies vying for the contract. While sole-source awards can be justified for unique capabilities or urgent needs, they often result in higher prices and reduced innovation compared to fully competed contracts.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for this contract due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without multiple bids, there is less assurance that the government secured the best possible price and terms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense and its research and development initiatives. The contract supported the development of laboratory and air prototypes, crucial for advancing military technology. The geographic impact is tied to the contractor's location in Missouri, though the ultimate use of prototypes is defense-wide. Workforce implications would include specialized engineers, technicians, and support staff employed by Stauder Consulting, Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price discovery and potentially inflates costs.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize higher spending if not closely monitored.
Long contract duration increases the risk of scope creep and cost escalation over time.
Lack of transparency inherent in sole-source procurements hinders public and congressional oversight.

Positive Signals

Contract supported critical defense prototyping, potentially enhancing national security capabilities.
Award to a single entity may have allowed for focused expertise and rapid development of specialized prototypes.
The fixed-fee component of the CPFF contract provides some cost certainty for the contractor's profit.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically focusing on research and development of advanced technologies. The market for defense prototyping services is characterized by specialized firms, often with deep technical expertise and security clearances. Spending in this area is driven by evolving threats and the need for technological superiority. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the prototypes, but R&D contracts of this magnitude are common within the DoD.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have significant subcontracting requirements indicated by the data. The award to Stauder Consulting, Inc. (assuming it is not a small business itself) suggests a focus on specialized capabilities rather than broad small business engagement. This contract's structure does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). As a sole-source award, transparency might be limited compared to competed contracts. Accountability measures would rely on contract performance reviews and audits. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Research and Development
Advanced Air Systems Development
Military Technology Prototyping
Defense Contract Management Agency Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus contract type
Long contract duration
Lack of competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.4 million to STAUDER CONSULTING, INC.. STRIKELINE-A LAB AND AIR PROTOTYPES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STAUDER CONSULTING, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-06-08. End: 2015-06-01.

What was the specific nature of the 'STRIKELINE-A LAB AND AIR PROTOTYPES' developed under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the 'STRIKELINE-A LAB AND AIR PROTOTYPES.' However, the contract's classification under 'Computer Systems Design Services' (NAICS 541512) suggests that the prototypes likely involved integrated systems, potentially including software, hardware, and networking components, designed for laboratory testing and aerial application or operation. Given the defense context, these could range from advanced sensor systems, communication platforms, or control mechanisms for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or other airborne platforms. Further details would require access to the contract's statement of work or related documentation.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure typically impact project costs compared to other contract types?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is often used for research and development or when the scope of work is uncertain. Under CPFF, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure shifts much of the cost risk to the government. While the fixed fee provides the contractor with a predictable profit margin, it can incentivize cost overruns, as the contractor is not directly penalized for increased expenses beyond the estimated cost. This contrasts with fixed-price contracts, where the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns and has a stronger incentive to control expenses to maximize profit. Therefore, CPFF contracts require robust government oversight to manage costs effectively.

What are the implications of a sole-source award for government procurement and taxpayer value?

Sole-source awards, like the one for STRIKELINE-A, mean that only one contractor was solicited and awarded the contract, bypassing the competitive bidding process. This can be justified when a unique capability is required, or in emergency situations. However, the primary implication is the potential for higher costs. Without competition, there is less pressure on the contractor to offer the lowest possible price. This lack of price discovery can lead to taxpayers paying more than they would in a competitive environment. Furthermore, sole-source awards can stifle innovation by limiting the number of companies contributing solutions and may reduce transparency in the procurement process.

Given the contract's duration (2915 days, approx. 8 years), what risks are associated with long-term sole-source R&D contracts?

Long-term sole-source Research and Development (R&D) contracts, such as this 8-year award, carry several inherent risks. Firstly, the extended timeline increases the likelihood of scope creep, where project requirements evolve or expand beyond the original intent, leading to cost increases and delays. Secondly, without periodic re-competition, the initial pricing and performance assumptions may become outdated, potentially resulting in the government paying above-market rates over time. Thirdly, the lack of sustained competitive pressure can lead to complacency in cost control and innovation by the incumbent contractor. Finally, the government's ability to adapt to new technologies or alternative solutions is diminished, as it is locked into a single provider for an extended period.

What does the 'MISSOURI' (MO) designation typically signify in Department of Defense contract awards?

The 'MISSOURI' (MO) designation, along with the state abbreviation 'MO', likely indicates the state where the contract was awarded or where the primary performance occurred. In the context of Department of Defense contracts, these designations often relate to the administrative or operational jurisdiction of the awarding agency or the location of the contractor's facility performing the work. It can also sometimes refer to specific programs or initiatives associated with that state, though its precise meaning here would require consulting DoD procurement regulations or specific contract details. For this contract, it suggests Stauder Consulting, Inc. had a presence or performed work related to Missouri.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Computer Systems Design Services

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N6893607R0024

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 115 MEXICO CT STE D, SAINT PETERS, MO, 63376

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,433,205

Exercised Options: $16,433,205

Current Obligation: $16,433,205

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline