DoD's $16M fabricated metal products contract to General Electric Company awarded without competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $16,093,002 ($16.1M)
Contractor: General Electric Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2008-07-03
End Date: 2010-09-30
Contract Duration: 819 days
Daily Burn Rate: $19.6K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: NOT REPORTED
Sector: Other
Official Description: FRAME,COMBUSTION CH
Place of Performance
Location: LYNN, ESSEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01905
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $16.1 million to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY for work described as: FRAME,COMBUSTION CH Key points: 1. The contract value of $16.1 million for fabricated metal products represents a significant investment in specialized manufacturing capabilities. 2. Awarded to General Electric Company, this contract highlights the reliance on established, large-scale industrial partners for critical defense needs. 3. The 'NOT COMPETED' status raises questions about the availability of alternative suppliers and potential missed opportunities for cost savings through competition. 4. The contract duration of 819 days suggests a need for sustained production or service delivery, indicating a long-term requirement. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 332999 covers a broad range of 'All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing,' implying a diverse set of potential goods or services. 6. The absence of specific product details (PSC code is blank) makes it difficult to benchmark against similar procurements or assess the precise nature of the fabricated metal products.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Without a competitive bidding process, it is challenging to definitively assess the value for money. The $16.1 million award to General Electric Company for unspecified fabricated metal products lacks clear benchmarks for comparison. The absence of a Public Service Code (PSC) and detailed product descriptions hinders a thorough price analysis against market rates or similar government contracts. The sole-source nature suggests potential reasons for lack of competition, such as unique capabilities or proprietary technology, but without further information, the pricing cannot be independently validated as optimal.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically employed when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the requirement. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a multi-bidder scenario, potentially leading to a higher price than might have been achieved through open bidding.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without exploring alternative vendors, there's a risk that the price is not the most economical available.
Public Impact
The Department of Defense is the primary beneficiary, likely receiving critical fabricated metal components for its operations. The contract supports the manufacturing sector, specifically within the fabricated metal products industry. The geographic impact is centered around the contractor's facilities, likely in Massachusetts where the contract was registered. This contract may sustain or create jobs within General Electric Company's manufacturing workforce.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition limits price transparency and potential cost savings for taxpayers.
- Vague product description (NAICS 332999, blank PSC) makes it difficult to assess the specific value and necessity of the procurement.
- Awarded to a large, established contractor, potentially overlooking opportunities for smaller, specialized businesses.
- Contract duration of over two years without clear performance metrics raises concerns about ongoing need and efficiency.
Positive Signals
- Awarded to a reputable and experienced contractor, General Electric Company, suggesting a high likelihood of meeting technical requirements.
- The contract addresses a need within the Department of Defense, indicating its importance to national security or operational readiness.
- The substantial contract value suggests a significant requirement that contributes to the industrial base.
Sector Analysis
The fabricated metal products manufacturing sector (NAICS 332) is a vital part of the industrial base, producing a wide array of goods from structural components to specialized machinery parts. The Department of Defense is a significant consumer of these products, requiring everything from vehicle parts to equipment housings. The market size for fabricated metal products is substantial, with numerous companies ranging from small job shops to large industrial conglomerates like General Electric. This contract, valued at $16.1 million, represents a notable, albeit specific, allocation within this sector, likely for components that require specialized manufacturing expertise or integration with larger defense systems.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, the award to a large corporation like General Electric Company suggests that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses might be limited unless explicitly mandated or pursued by the prime contractor. Without specific subcontracting plans or goals outlined in the award details, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal, focusing instead on the capabilities of a major industrial player.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) may conduct audits to ensure cost allowability and reasonableness, especially given the sole-source nature. Transparency is limited due to the lack of detailed public information regarding the specific products and the justification for the sole-source award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Defense Logistics Agency Procurement
- Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing Contracts
- Sole-Source Defense Procurements
- General Electric Company Federal Contracts
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award lacks transparency and competitive justification.
- Vague product description hinders value assessment.
- Potential for overpayment due to lack of competition.
- Limited insight into contractor performance and specific deliverables.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, general-electric-company, fabricated-metal-products, sole-source, not-competed, defense-logistics-agency, massachusetts, manufacturing, miscellaneous-fabricated-metal-products, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $16.1 million to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. FRAME,COMBUSTION CH
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $16.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-07-03. End: 2010-09-30.
What specific fabricated metal products were procured under this contract?
The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 332999, 'All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing,' and has a blank Public Service Code (PSC). This lack of specificity means the exact nature of the fabricated metal products is not detailed in the available information. It could range from simple metal components to complex assemblies. Without further documentation or a more precise PSC, it is impossible to determine the specific items procured. This ambiguity makes it difficult to assess the contract's relevance, necessity, or to benchmark its value against comparable items.
What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?
The data explicitly states the contract type as 'NOT COMPETED,' which typically implies a sole-source or limited competition award. However, the specific justification for this sole-source award is not provided in the given data. Common reasons for sole-source procurements include unique capabilities of a single contractor, urgent and compelling needs where competition is not feasible, or when only one responsible source exists. Without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), it is impossible to ascertain the precise rationale behind not competing this $16.1 million contract. This lack of transparency limits the ability to evaluate if competition was truly not possible or if it was simply bypassed.
How does the $16.1 million contract value compare to similar procurements for fabricated metal products by the DoD?
Benchmarking this $16.1 million contract is challenging due to the broad NAICS code (332999) and the absence of a specific PSC. Fabricated metal products can range widely in complexity and cost. A direct comparison to 'similar' procurements would require identifying contracts for identical or highly comparable items. Given the sole-source nature and lack of detailed product information, it's difficult to determine if $16.1 million is a reasonable price. If the products are standard components, this value might be high compared to competitive bids. If they are highly specialized or custom-manufactured items requiring unique expertise possessed only by General Electric, the value might be justified, but this cannot be confirmed without more data.
What is General Electric Company's track record with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?
General Electric Company (GE) is a major industrial conglomerate with a long history of contracting with the U.S. federal government, including the Department of Defense. While the provided data snippet focuses on a single contract, GE's broader federal contracting history typically involves large-scale procurements across various sectors, including aerospace, energy, and defense systems. Their track record generally includes delivering complex systems and components. However, like any large contractor, they may have faced scrutiny or performance issues on specific contracts. Without a comprehensive review of GE's entire federal contract portfolio, it's difficult to draw definitive conclusions about their performance specifically related to fabricated metal products procured under this particular award.
What are the potential risks associated with awarding a large contract without competition?
The primary risk of awarding a large contract without competition is the potential for inflated pricing and reduced value for money. Without the pressure of competing bids, the contractor may not be incentivized to offer the lowest possible price. Other risks include a lack of innovation that might come from a competitive environment, potential for complacency in performance, and the perception of unfairness or favoritism. Furthermore, it limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or technologies that other vendors might offer. For taxpayers, the risk is that public funds are not being used as efficiently as they could be.
What is the historical spending pattern for fabricated metal products by the Defense Logistics Agency or DoD?
The provided data snippet focuses on a single contract awarded in 2008. To understand historical spending patterns for fabricated metal products by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) or the broader DoD, a comprehensive analysis of historical contract data would be necessary. This would involve querying databases for contracts under relevant NAICS codes (like 332) and PSCs over several fiscal years. Such an analysis would reveal trends in spending volume, average contract values, dominant contractors, and the prevalence of competitive versus sole-source awards. Without this broader dataset, it's impossible to place this $16.1 million contract within a larger historical context of DoD procurement in this sector.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing › All Other Miscellaneous Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: ENGINES AND TURBINES AND COMPONENT
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: NOT REPORTED (NO)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: ONE NEUMANN WAY, CINCINNATI, OH, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $16,093,002
Exercised Options: $16,093,002
Current Obligation: $16,093,002
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: FA810405G0004
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-07-03
Current End Date: 2010-09-30
Potential End Date: 2010-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-09-20
More Contracts from General Electric Company
- 200607!387702!1700!n00019!naval AIR Systems Command !N0001906C0088 !A!N! !N! ! !20060424!20090131!001408509!001408509!001367960!n!general Electric Company !1000 Western AVE !lynn !ma!01905!37490!009!25!lynn !essex !mass !+000018238000!n!n!000000000000!2840!gas Turbines and JET Engines, Acft & Comps !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !000 !NOT Discernable !336412!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!u!j!1!001!n!1a!z!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!y! ! ! !Y!1719!N00019!0001! ! — $2.4B (Department of Defense)
- Adaptive Engine Transition Program (aetp) — $2.1B (Department of Defense)
- 200608!001069!2100!w58rgz!usa Aviation and Missile Command!w58rgz06c0038 !A!N! !Y! ! !20051215!20101231!137488664!137488664!001367960!n!general Electric Company !1 Neumann WAY !cincinnati !oh!45215!15000!061!39!cincinnati !hamilton !ohio !+000177879422!n!n!000000000000!r706!logistics Support Services !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !000 !NOT Discernable !541330!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!n!j!1!001!n!1g!z!n!z! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!d!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $1.6B (Department of Defense)
- 200210!004379!1700!AA427 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001901C0147 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20020508!20031130!001408509!001408509!001367960!n!general Electric Company Inc !1000 Western AVE !lynn !ma!01910!37490!009!25!lynn !essex !mass !+000060619860!n!n!000000000000!2840!gas Turbines and JET Engines, Acft & Comps !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !2bjn!f414-Ge-400 !336412!E! !1! ! !C! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!n!j!1!001!n!1a!a!w!f! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!y! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $1.5B (Department of Defense)
- F414-GE-400 Engines — $1.2B (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)