Department of the Army awards $21.25M firm-fixed-price contract for ordnance manufacturing, not competed

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,252,597 ($21.3M)

Contractor: Charles Reed Knight JR

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-09-25

End Date: 2026-12-30

Contract Duration: 461 days

Daily Burn Rate: $46.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT IN SUPPORT OF A FOREIGN MILITARY SALES (FMS) REQUIREMENT.

Place of Performance

Location: TITUSVILLE, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32780

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.3 million to CHARLES REED KNIGHT JR for work described as: FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT IN SUPPORT OF A FOREIGN MILITARY SALES (FMS) REQUIREMENT. Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a non-competitive basis, raising questions about price discovery and potential value. 2. Significant duration of 461 days suggests a substantial scope of work or long-term support. 3. Focus on ordnance manufacturing indicates a critical defense supply chain component. 4. Contract value of over $21 million represents a considerable investment in this specific capability. 5. Geographic location in Florida may point to specific industrial or logistical advantages. 6. Lack of competition limits opportunities for other capable firms and potentially higher costs.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $21.25 million for ordnance manufacturing is substantial. However, without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The firm-fixed-price structure offers cost certainty to the government, but the absence of competition means the government may not have secured the best possible price. Further analysis would require comparing the unit costs or overall value to historical data for similar ordnance production or support services, which is not readily available in the provided data.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. The specific justification for this approach is not detailed, but it implies that only one source was deemed capable of meeting the requirement, or that the circumstances did not allow for full and open competition. The lack of multiple bidders means that the government did not benefit from the price reductions and innovation that typically arise from a competitive environment.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may have paid a premium, as there was no pressure on the contractor to offer the lowest possible price. This also limits opportunities for other businesses to secure government contracts.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and potentially allied forces through Foreign Military Sales (FMS), receiving critical ordnance supplies. The contract delivers essential ordnance and ordnance accessories, crucial for military operations and readiness. The geographic impact is centered in Florida, supporting local industry and potentially creating or sustaining jobs in the region. Workforce implications include employment for skilled labor in manufacturing and related support roles within the defense industrial base.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award raises concerns about fair pricing and potential overspending.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification could mask inefficiencies or missed opportunities.
Reliance on a single source for critical ordnance may pose supply chain risks if the contractor faces disruptions.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability for the government.
Contract supports a Foreign Military Sales requirement, indicating its importance in international defense cooperation.
The award is for a specific manufacturing capability, suggesting a focused and potentially efficient use of resources for that niche.

Sector Analysis

The ordnance manufacturing sector is a critical component of the defense industrial base, characterized by specialized production processes and stringent quality requirements. This contract fits within the broader category of defense manufacturing, which includes a wide range of weapon systems, ammunition, and related equipment. Spending in this sector is often driven by geopolitical factors, military modernization efforts, and foreign military sales. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the type of ordnance, but significant government contracts in this area often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a factor in this award, as the 'sb' field is false and the contract was not competed. There is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, are likely limited. The focus remains on the prime contractor's capabilities for this sole-source award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver specific goods or services at an agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award; details regarding the justification for the sole-source award and the negotiation process are not publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Foreign Military Sales Program
Ordnance and Ammunition Procurement
Defense Manufacturing Contracts
Army Weapons Systems Support

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition
Supply chain risk due to single-source dependency
Limited transparency in contract negotiation and award process

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.3 million to CHARLES REED KNIGHT JR. FIRM FIXED PRICE CONTRACT IN SUPPORT OF A FOREIGN MILITARY SALES (FMS) REQUIREMENT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHARLES REED KNIGHT JR.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-25. End: 2026-12-30.

What is the specific type of ordnance being manufactured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing' (NAICS code 332994). However, it does not specify the exact type of ordnance. This could range from ammunition for small arms, larger caliber munitions, or related accessories. Understanding the specific nature of the ordnance is crucial for assessing its strategic importance, potential risks, and for benchmarking costs against similar items. Without this detail, the analysis remains at a general level of ordnance production.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and is a 'SOLE SOURCE' award. However, the specific justification for this sole-source determination is not included. Typical reasons for sole-source awards include unique capabilities of a single contractor, urgent and compelling needs where competition is not feasible, or when only one source is available. Without the official justification document, it is impossible to verify the necessity of this approach and assess whether it truly represents the best value for the government and taxpayers. This lack of transparency is a significant concern.

How does the contract value compare to historical spending on similar ordnance manufacturing contracts by the Department of the Army?

The contract value is $21.25 million. To compare this to historical spending, one would need to access databases of past Department of the Army contracts for ordnance manufacturing, specifically looking for contracts with similar scope, type of ordnance, and duration. Without access to such historical data, a direct comparison is not possible. However, $21.25 million is a substantial amount, suggesting a significant production run or a complex manufacturing process. If similar contracts were competed and awarded at lower prices, it would indicate potential overpricing in this sole-source award.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for critical ordnance manufacturing?

A sole-source award for critical ordnance manufacturing presents several risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can lead to higher prices than might be achieved through a competitive bidding process, representing a potential loss of taxpayer value. Secondly, it creates a dependency on a single supplier, which can be risky if that supplier experiences production issues, financial instability, or geopolitical challenges. This dependency could disrupt the supply chain for essential military materiel. Lastly, without competitive pressure, there may be less incentive for the contractor to innovate or improve efficiency, potentially leading to outdated technology or higher long-term costs.

What is the significance of this contract being for a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) requirement?

The contract being in support of a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) requirement signifies that the ordnance being manufactured is intended for sale to an allied nation, facilitated by the U.S. government. This indicates the item is deemed essential by both the U.S. military and its international partners. FMS contracts often involve complex logistics, specific technical requirements dictated by the buying nation, and adherence to U.S. export control regulations. While supporting allies is a key foreign policy objective, it also means that U.S. defense production capacity is being utilized for international demand, which can impact domestic availability and pricing.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing › Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: WEAPONS

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: 701 COLUMBIA BLVD, TITUSVILLE, FL, 32780

Business Categories: Category Business, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Sole Proprietorship, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,252,597

Exercised Options: $21,252,597

Current Obligation: $21,252,597

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline