DoD Awards $60.3M for Communication Equipment, Raising Value Concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,935,458 ($9.9M)

Contractor: Peraton Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-04-08

End Date: 2007-03-31

Contract Duration: 722 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: IT

Official Description: 200510!000115!5700!FA8726!ESC/NIK !FA877104D0003 !A!N! !N!RS03 ! !20050408!20071007!602938771!602938771!602938771!N!MULTIMAX INC !1441 MCCORMICK DR !LARGO !MD!20774!45825!033!24!LARGO !PRINCE GEORGE S !MARYLAND !+000002712000!N!N!000000000000!5895!MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIP !000 !* !334290!E! !5!B!M! !A! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!N!Z!2!002!C! !Z!Y!Z! ! !N!A!N!N!Z! ! ! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: HERNDON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20170

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $9.9 million to PERATON INC. for work described as: 200510!000115!5700!FA8726!ESC/NIK !FA877104D0003 !A!N! !N!RS03 ! !20050408!20071007!602938771!602938771!602938771!N!MULTIMAX INC !1441 MCCORMICK DR !LARGO !MD!20774!45825!033!24!LARGO !PRIN… Key points: 1. The contract value of $60.3M for communication equipment appears high for the specified period. 2. Competition was limited, raising questions about price discovery and potential overpayment. 3. The sector is Electronics and Communication Equipment, with potential for cost savings through better sourcing. 4. Risk of overspending exists due to the limited competition and the nature of the equipment.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $60.3M for communication equipment over two years seems high compared to industry benchmarks for similar equipment. Further analysis is needed to determine if the pricing is justified by the specific technical requirements or if it represents a potential overpayment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating a limited competitive process. This method may have restricted the pool of potential bidders, potentially leading to less favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition raises concerns about taxpayer value, as it may have prevented the government from securing the best possible price for the communication equipment.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may have overpaid for communication equipment due to a restricted bidding process. The Department of Defense's acquisition of electronic communication equipment could be subject to scrutiny. The long-term implications for government spending on similar equipment need to be assessed.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Limited competition
  • Potential overpricing
  • Lack of transparency in source exclusion

Positive Signals

  • Awarded to a known entity (PERATON INC.)
  • Contract duration aligns with potential needs

Sector Analysis

The Electronics and Communication Equipment sector is dynamic, with rapid technological advancements. Benchmarks for similar contracts are crucial for assessing value, and this award's pricing should be compared against market rates for comparable systems.

Small Business Impact

There is no clear indication of small business participation in this contract. Further investigation is needed to determine if opportunities were provided to small businesses or if the contract was exclusively awarded to larger entities.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants closer oversight to ensure it was justified and did not unduly restrict competition. Accountability for the pricing and justification of the limited competition is essential.

Related Government Programs

  • Wired Telecommunications Carriers
  • Department of Defense Contracting
  • Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

  • Limited competition raises value concerns.
  • Potential for overpricing due to restricted bidding.
  • Lack of transparency regarding source exclusion.
  • High contract value for the specified period.
  • Insufficient information on small business participation.

Tags

wired-telecommunications-carriers, department-of-defense, va, delivery-order, 1m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $9.9 million to PERATON INC.. 200510!000115!5700!FA8726!ESC/NIK !FA877104D0003 !A!N! !N!RS03 ! !20050408!20071007!602938771!602938771!602938771!N!MULTIMAX INC !1441 MCCORMICK DR !LARGO !MD!20774!45825!033!24!LARGO !PRINCE GEORGE S !MARYLAND !+000002712000!N!N!000000000000!5895!MISCELLANEOUS COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIP !000 !* !334290!E! !5!B!M! !A! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PERATON 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 $9.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-04-08. End: 2007-03-31.

What specific factors justified the exclusion of other potential sources in this full and open competition?

The justification for excluding other sources in a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award is critical. Typically, this requires a documented rationale, such as unique technical capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent needs that only a specific vendor could meet. Without this documentation, the exclusion raises significant concerns about fairness and potential favoritism, impacting the overall integrity of the procurement process.

How does the $60.3M contract value compare to the market rate for similar communication equipment during the 2005-2007 period?

A thorough market analysis is required to compare the $60.3M contract value against prevailing market rates for similar communication equipment between 2005 and 2007. Factors like equipment specifications, quantities, and vendor margins should be considered. If the awarded price significantly exceeds market benchmarks, it suggests potential overpricing and a failure to achieve optimal value for taxpayer funds.

What is the long-term strategic value of this communication equipment acquisition for the Department of Defense?

The long-term strategic value of this communication equipment acquisition depends on its role in supporting critical defense missions, its technological relevance over time, and its integration with existing or future systems. Assessing its contribution to national security objectives, its upgradeability, and its lifespan is crucial. Without this context, the significant investment of $60.3M may not yield commensurate long-term benefits.

Industry Classification

NAICS: InformationWired and Wireless Telecommunications (except Satellite)Wired Telecommunications Carriers

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENTMAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: TWO STEP

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Veritas Capital Fund Management, L.L.C.

Address: 12975 WORLDGATE STE 7322, HERNDON, VA, 20170

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA877104D0003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-04-08

Current End Date: 2007-03-31

Potential End Date: 2007-03-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2023-03-27

More Contracts from Peraton Inc.

View all Peraton Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending