Army awarded $14.5M for ammunition containers, with a 6-year duration and 6 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,490,768 ($14.5M)

Contractor: Genesee Tristar, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-08-31

End Date: 2010-07-09

Contract Duration: 1,773 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200511!001660!2100!W52P1J!U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !W52P1J05C0064 !A!N! !N! ! !20050831!20060731!061209524!061209524!061209524!N!BEST-FOAM FABRICATORS, INC !9633 S COTTAGE GROVE AVE !CHICAGO !IL!60628!14000!031!17!CHICAGO !COOK !ILLINOIS !+000003988800!N!N!000000000000!8140!AMMUN & NUCLR ORDNCE BXS, PKGS & SPL CONTAINERS !A6 !AMMUNITION !000 !* !332439!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!N!K!2!006!K! !A!N!A! ! !N!B!Y!Y! ! !C! !B!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: LOUISVILLE, JEFFERSON County, KENTUCKY, 40219

State: Kentucky Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.5 million to GENESEE TRISTAR, INC. for work described as: 200511!001660!2100!W52P1J!U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !W52P1J05C0064 !A!N! !N! ! !20050831!20060731!061209524!061209524!061209524!N!BEST-FOAM FABRICATORS, INC !9633 S COTTAGE GROVE AVE !CHICAGO !IL!60628!14000!031!17!CHICAGO !COOK… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for ammunition containers, indicating a need for specialized packaging solutions. 2. The contract was competed, suggesting a degree of market engagement and potential for competitive pricing. 3. A 6-year duration suggests a long-term requirement for these specialized containers. 4. The award value of $14.5M reflects the scale of the Army's logistical needs for ammunition. 5. The contractor, BEST-FOAM FABRICATORS, INC., is based in Chicago, IL. 6. The contract falls under the 'Other Metal Container Manufacturing' NAICS code.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award value is $14,490,768.28 over approximately 6 years. Without specific per-unit cost data or benchmarks for similar ammunition containers, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the duration of the contract and the number of bidders suggest a potentially competitive environment that could lead to reasonable pricing. Further analysis would require comparing unit costs to industry standards or historical data for similar items.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the full solicitation. There were 6 bidders, which suggests a moderate level of competition. This level of competition is generally sufficient to encourage price discovery and ensure that the government receives a fair price, though a higher number of bidders could potentially drive prices lower.

Taxpayer Impact: A moderate number of bidders (6) suggests that taxpayers likely benefited from competitive pricing, avoiding the potential overpayment associated with sole-source or limited competition awards.

Public Impact

The U.S. Army benefits from the reliable supply of specialized containers for ammunition. These containers are crucial for the safe storage, transport, and handling of ammunition. The contract supports manufacturing jobs within the sector, potentially in Illinois where the contractor is located. Ensures operational readiness and logistical support for military personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The exclusion of sources prior to full competition raises questions about the breadth of market engagement.
The long contract duration (6 years) could introduce risks related to price escalation or technological obsolescence if not managed carefully.
Lack of detailed per-unit cost data makes it challenging to benchmark value for money definitively.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating a commitment to market-based pricing.
A moderate number of bidders (6) suggests sufficient interest and competition to drive reasonable prices.
The contract addresses a critical logistical need for the U.S. Army, ensuring operational readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Other Metal Container Manufacturing' sector, which is part of the broader manufacturing industry. This sector produces various types of containers, including those for specialized military applications like ammunition. The market for defense-related packaging is often characterized by specific technical requirements and long-term supply agreements. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other contracts for similar military packaging solutions across different branches of the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss=false, sb=false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a set-aside provision. The primary contractor, BEST-FOAM FABRICATORS, INC., is located in Chicago, IL. Analysis of their subcontracting practices would require further investigation into their specific subcontracting plan, if any, associated with this award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army, a component of the Department of Defense. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards, delivery schedules, and quality control requirements. Transparency is facilitated by contract databases that publish award information. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Ammunition Procurement
Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Defense Manufacturing
Military Packaging Solutions
Industrial Operations Support

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Long contract duration may pose risks for price escalation or obsolescence.
Lack of detailed unit cost data hinders precise value-for-money assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.5 million to GENESEE TRISTAR, INC.. 200511!001660!2100!W52P1J!U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !W52P1J05C0064 !A!N! !N! ! !20050831!20060731!061209524!061209524!061209524!N!BEST-FOAM FABRICATORS, INC !9633 S COTTAGE GROVE AVE !CHICAGO !IL!60628!14000!031!17!CHICAGO !COOK !ILLINOIS !+000003988800!N!N!000000000000!8140!AMMUN & NUCLR ORDNCE BXS, PKGS & SPL CONTAINERS !A6 !AMMUNITION !000 !* !332439!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENESEE TRISTAR, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-08-31. End: 2010-07-09.

What is the historical spending pattern for ammunition containers by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing the historical spending for ammunition containers by the Department of the Army requires accessing and processing extensive procurement data over multiple fiscal years. Based on the provided data, this specific contract (W52P1J05C0064) was awarded in 2005 for $14,490,768.28 with an end date in 2010. To establish a broader pattern, one would need to identify all contracts for similar items (e.g., ammunition boxes, containers, packaging) awarded by the Army over a significant period, such as the last 5-10 years. This would involve filtering procurement databases by relevant Product Service Codes (PSCs) or Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) categories related to ammunition packaging and the specific agency (Department of the Army). Aggregating the award amounts and durations of these contracts would reveal trends in spending volume, average contract values, and the frequency of awards. It would also be important to note any significant fluctuations or shifts in spending that might correlate with changes in operational tempo, force structure, or specific military campaigns. Without access to a comprehensive historical database, a detailed spending pattern cannot be precisely quantified.

How does the per-unit cost of these ammunition containers compare to industry benchmarks?

Determining the per-unit cost benchmark for these ammunition containers is challenging with the provided data alone. The total award value is $14,490,768.28, and the contract duration is approximately 6 years (1773 days). However, the exact quantity of units to be procured over this period is not explicitly stated in the abbreviated data. To establish a per-unit cost, we would need the total number of containers purchased. If we assume a constant rate of delivery or a total quantity, we could derive an average unit price. For instance, if 1 million units were procured over the contract life, the average unit price would be around $14.49. To compare this to industry benchmarks, we would need to research pricing for similar military-grade ammunition containers from other manufacturers or consult industry cost-estimating guides. Factors such as material (e.g., specific types of foam, metal), dimensions, load-bearing capacity, environmental resistance (e.g., waterproof, shockproof), and certifications would heavily influence the benchmark price. Without these specifics and comparative market data, a precise benchmark comparison is not feasible.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how is performance measured?

The provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this specific contract (W52P1J05C0064). However, for a contract involving the manufacturing and supply of ammunition containers, typical KPIs would likely include: 1. **Delivery Schedule Adherence:** Meeting specified delivery dates and quantities for the containers. 2. **Quality Compliance:** Ensuring containers meet all technical specifications, material requirements, and performance standards (e.g., durability, protection level). 3. **Defect Rate:** Maintaining a low percentage of defective units. 4. **On-Time Performance:** Overall timeliness of fulfilling contract obligations. Performance measurement would likely involve regular reporting from the contractor, government inspections and acceptance testing of delivered goods, and performance reviews conducted by the contracting officer or their representatives. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in contract remedies, such as penalties, corrective action requests, or even termination.

What is the track record of BEST-FOAM FABRICATORS, INC. with government contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

BEST-FOAM FABRICATORS, INC. was awarded this specific contract (W52P1J05C0064) by the Department of the Army for ammunition containers. To assess their broader track record, one would need to query federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for all contracts awarded to this entity. This would reveal the number of contracts, their values, the agencies involved, the types of goods or services provided, and their performance history (if recorded). A review of past contracts could indicate if they have a history of successful delivery, any instances of contract disputes, terminations, or performance issues. For a company specializing in fabricated foam products, their government contract history might include other types of protective packaging, specialized containers, or related manufacturing services. A positive track record with the Department of Defense, especially for similar defense-related items, would suggest reliability and capability, while a history of issues might raise concerns about future performance.

What is the significance of the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type?

The award type 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' (often abbreviated as FBOE or similar) indicates a specific procurement process. It means that the agency intended to conduct a full and open competition, soliciting offers from all responsible sources. However, prior to the solicitation, certain sources were excluded. The reasons for exclusion must be justified and documented, often based on factors like national security, proprietary information, or specific capabilities that only a limited number of entities possess. Despite the initial exclusion, the subsequent solicitation was open to all *remaining* responsible sources. This approach aims to balance the benefits of broad competition with the need to address specific circumstances that necessitate limiting the initial pool of potential offerors. For taxpayers, this means that while competition was sought, the potential for the lowest possible price might be constrained if the exclusion criteria were narrow or if the excluded sources represented significant market players.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Boiler, Tank, and Shipping Container Manufacturing › Other Metal Container Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: CONTAINERS/PACKAGING/PACKING SUPPL

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT (K)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 851 COUNTY RD 77, ROGERSVILLE, AL, 05

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,147,155

Exercised Options: $9,147,155

Current Obligation: $14,490,768

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline