DoD's $10.5M contract for small arms parts awarded to Sabre Defence Industries LLC in 2006

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,533,715 ($10.5M)

Contractor: Sabre Defence Industries LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-07-26

End Date: 2010-07-30

Contract Duration: 1,465 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Place of Performance

Location: NASHVILLE, DAVIDSON County, TENNESSEE, 37211

State: Tennessee Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.5 million to SABRE DEFENCE INDUSTRIES LLC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for small arms, ordnance, and accessories manufacturing. 2. The contract was a definitive contract with a firm fixed price. 3. It was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources. 4. The contract duration was 1465 days. 5. The contract was awarded to Sabre Defence Industries LLC. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army. 7. The contract was awarded in Tennessee.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.5 million for small arms parts over approximately four years appears to be within a reasonable range for defense procurement, though specific benchmarking is difficult without detailed cost breakdowns. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to control costs, but the lack of detailed performance metrics or comparisons makes a definitive value-for-money assessment challenging. Without more granular data on the specific items procured and their market prices at the time, it's hard to definitively state if this represented excellent or questionable value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. This suggests a potentially limited competitive landscape compared to a truly open bid. The presence of two bidders, as indicated by 'no': 2, further supports this, implying that the competition may not have been as robust as possible, potentially impacting price discovery and the government's ability to secure the lowest possible price.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition can lead to higher prices for taxpayers as the pool of potential suppliers is restricted, reducing the downward pressure on bids.

Public Impact

This contract directly supported the U.S. Army's need for small arms and ordnance components. The procurement likely ensured the continued readiness and operational capability of military personnel relying on these arms. The contract's execution in Tennessee had implications for the local workforce and economy within the defense manufacturing sector. The services delivered were critical for maintaining and potentially manufacturing essential military equipment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition may have resulted in less favorable pricing for the government.
The exclusion of certain sources raises questions about the breadth of the competitive process.
Lack of detailed performance data makes it difficult to assess the contractor's track record on this specific award.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under a firm fixed-price structure, which helps in cost control.
The definitive contract type provides a clear framework for the procurement.
The contract was awarded to a specific entity, Sabre Defence Industries LLC, indicating a clear supplier relationship.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on small arms and ordnance. The market for such components is characterized by specialized manufacturing capabilities, stringent quality control, and often long-standing relationships with government agencies. While the exact market size for this specific niche is hard to pinpoint, the overall defense industrial base represents a significant portion of federal spending. This contract represents a typical procurement action within this specialized segment, aimed at ensuring the supply of critical weapon system parts.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The primary focus was on fulfilling the Army's requirements through the awarded contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Army, likely through contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including delivery schedules and quality specifications. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Procurement
Ordnance and Small Arms Manufacturing
Army Weapon Systems Support
Firm Fixed Price Contracts
Defense Industrial Base Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for higher costs due to restricted bidding pool
Lack of detailed performance metrics for value assessment

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.5 million to SABRE DEFENCE INDUSTRIES LLC. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SABRE DEFENCE INDUSTRIES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-07-26. End: 2010-07-30.

What was the specific nature of the 'small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories' procured under this contract?

The contract (332994) was for the manufacturing of small arms, ordnance, and related accessories. While the specific itemized list of parts is not publicly detailed in the provided summary data, these typically include components for rifles, machine guns, pistols, artillery pieces, ammunition handling equipment, and related support items. The 'Manufacturing' designation suggests either the production of new components or significant refurbishment/assembly of existing ones. The 'Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing' category (NAICS code 332994) covers establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing ammunition (except small-arms ammunition), bombs, missiles, rockets, and related components, as well as small arms, artillery, and related parts.

How does the $10.5 million contract value compare to similar procurements for small arms components?

Benchmarking this $10.5 million contract value against similar procurements for small arms components is challenging without access to detailed historical contract data for comparable items and quantities. Defense procurements for weapon systems and their parts can vary significantly based on the specific weapon platform, the complexity of the components, the quantities ordered, and the prevailing market conditions at the time of award (2006). However, $10.5 million over a four-year period (2006-2010) suggests a moderate-sized contract. Larger, more complex weapon system contracts can run into hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, while smaller, more routine component orders might be in the thousands or low millions. This contract appears to be in the mid-range for specialized component manufacturing.

What were the primary risks associated with this contract, and how were they managed?

Primary risks associated with this contract likely included supply chain disruptions, quality control issues with manufactured parts, potential cost overruns (though mitigated by fixed-price), and contractor performance failures. The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' suggests a risk that the chosen contractor might not have been the most cost-effective or technically superior option available if competition had been broader. Management of these risks would have been through the firm fixed-price structure, which places cost risk on the contractor, and through the Department of the Army's oversight, including quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) and delivery schedule monitoring. The definitive contract nature also provides a clear framework for managing performance expectations.

What was the contractor's track record prior to or during this contract?

The provided data does not include specific details about Sabre Defence Industries LLC's track record prior to or during this particular $10.5 million contract. To assess their performance, one would need to examine other contracts awarded to them, including their on-time delivery rates, quality performance, and any past performance evaluations or disputes. Federal procurement databases often contain past performance information, which contracting officers use in source selection. Without that specific data, it's impossible to definitively comment on their overall track record based solely on this award.

How did the 'exclusion of sources' in the competition impact the government's ability to achieve best value?

The 'exclusion of sources' implies that the competition, while intended to be open, had specific limitations on which companies could bid. This could arise from requirements for specific security clearances, proprietary technology, or unique manufacturing capabilities that only a subset of companies possessed. If the excluded sources represented significant potential competitors, their absence could have reduced the overall competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher prices or less innovative solutions than might have been achieved in a truly unrestricted competition. The government's ability to achieve 'best value' is thus potentially constrained by the parameters set for the competition, balancing the need for specialized capabilities against the benefits of broader market engagement.

What is the significance of the contract being a 'DEFINITIVE CONTRACT' with a 'FIRM FIXED PRICE'?

A 'Definitive Contract' is a standard, legally binding agreement that clearly outlines the rights and obligations of both the government and the contractor. It is typically used for significant procurements where the scope, price, and delivery terms are well-defined. The 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' (FFP) pricing structure is significant because it places the majority of the cost risk on the contractor. This means the contractor agrees to a set price for the goods or services, and cannot seek additional compensation from the government even if their costs increase. This structure is highly favored by the government for its predictability and cost control, as it shields the agency from cost overruns, provided the contract scope remains stable.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: WEAPONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Sabre Defence Holdings LLC (UEI: 968333216)

Address: 450 ALLIED DR, NASHVILLE, TN, 37211

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

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline