DoD's $28.4M contract for threat emitter systems awarded to Georgia Tech Applied Research Corp. without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,428,766 ($28.4M)

Contractor: Georgia Tech Applied Research Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2021-02-22

End Date: 2024-02-21

Contract Duration: 1,094 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: UNMANNED THREAT EMITTER (UMTE) THREAT KIT X (TK-12)REQUIRES A CONTRACTOR TO INTEGRATE, FABRICATE, INSTALL, AND TEST REMOTE EMITTER (RE) SYSTEMS FOR DELIVERY AT THE NEVADA TEST AND TRAINING RANGE (NTTR) AND JOINT PACIFIC ALASKA RANGE COMPLEX (JPARC).

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, FULTON County, GEORGIA, 30318

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.4 million to GEORGIA TECH APPLIED RESEARCH CORP for work described as: UNMANNED THREAT EMITTER (UMTE) THREAT KIT X (TK-12)REQUIRES A CONTRACTOR TO INTEGRATE, FABRICATE, INSTALL, AND TEST REMOTE EMITTER (RE) SYSTEMS FOR DELIVERY AT THE NEVADA TEST AND TRAINING RANGE (NTTR) AND JOINT PACIFIC ALASKA RANGE COMPLEX (JPARC). Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize cost overruns. 2. Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and limited innovation. 3. The duration of the contract (nearly 3 years) suggests a significant, ongoing need. 4. Performance context is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. 5. This contract falls within the National Security sector, supporting training exercises. 6. The contractor's specific expertise in this niche area warrants further investigation.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its sole-source nature and the specialized equipment involved. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if the $28.4 million represents a fair market price. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for research and development, can lead to higher costs if not closely managed, as the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee. Further analysis would require comparing the scope of work and deliverables to similar, competitively awarded contracts for threat emitter systems, if available.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one contractor, Georgia Tech Applied Research Corp., was solicited. The justification for this approach is not provided in the data. A lack of competition typically limits price discovery and can result in higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed procurement. It also suggests that either the government believes only this contractor possesses the necessary unique capabilities, or that the procurement process did not adequately explore competitive options.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may not have received the best possible price for these specialized threat emitter systems. This could translate to a less efficient use of federal funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense (DoD) and its personnel, who will utilize the threat emitter systems for realistic training scenarios. The services delivered include the integration, fabrication, installation, and testing of remote emitter systems. The geographic impact is focused on key training ranges: the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) and the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC). Workforce implications are likely to involve specialized technical personnel at Georgia Tech Applied Research Corp. and potentially at the training ranges for installation and operation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not rigorously managed.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification hinders full assessment of necessity.
Specialized nature of the equipment makes direct cost comparisons difficult.
Contract duration of nearly three years suggests a long-term reliance on this specific solution.

Positive Signals

Georgia Tech Applied Research Corp. is likely chosen for specialized expertise in a niche field.
The contract supports critical national security training requirements.
The systems are intended for use at major DoD training ranges, indicating strategic importance.
The fixed fee component of the contract provides some cost certainty for the contractor's profit.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the defense sector, specifically focusing on electronic warfare and training simulation capabilities. The market for such specialized systems is likely limited, with a few key players possessing the requisite technical expertise. The total addressable market for advanced threat emitter systems is difficult to quantify but is driven by the evolving needs of military training and readiness. This contract represents a significant investment in maintaining realistic training environments for national security purposes.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false) and there is no information regarding subcontracting plans (sb: false). This suggests that small businesses are unlikely to be direct beneficiaries of this particular award. The sole-source nature of the procurement further limits opportunities for small businesses to participate, either as prime contractors or subcontractors, unless they are specifically engaged by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices. Given the sole-source nature, there may be enhanced scrutiny on cost and performance justification. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected. Transparency is limited by the lack of a competitive bidding process and public justification for the sole-source award.

Related Government Programs

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Training Systems
Electronic Warfare Simulation
Military Training Range Operations
Advanced Threat Simulation Technology
Department of Defense Procurement

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type carries inherent cost overrun risk.
Limited public information on contractor's unique qualifications.
Potential for logistical and environmental challenges at remote installation sites.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.4 million to GEORGIA TECH APPLIED RESEARCH CORP. UNMANNED THREAT EMITTER (UMTE) THREAT KIT X (TK-12)REQUIRES A CONTRACTOR TO INTEGRATE, FABRICATE, INSTALL, AND TEST REMOTE EMITTER (RE) SYSTEMS FOR DELIVERY AT THE NEVADA TEST AND TRAINING RANGE (NTTR) AND JOINT PACIFIC ALASKA RANGE COMPLEX (JPARC).

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GEORGIA TECH APPLIED RESEARCH CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-02-22. End: 2024-02-21.

What is the specific technical capability or unique expertise that Georgia Tech Applied Research Corp. possesses that justified a sole-source award for the UNMANNED THREAT EMITTER (UMTE) THREAT KIT X

The provided data does not explicitly state the specific technical capability or unique expertise that justified the sole-source award to Georgia Tech Applied Research Corp. for the UMTE TK-12. Typically, sole-source justifications are based on factors such as proprietary technology, unique research and development capabilities, or the contractor being the only source capable of meeting urgent requirements. Without access to the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition - J&A), it is impossible to definitively state the reason. However, given the specialized nature of 'Unmanned Threat Emitter' systems, it is plausible that Georgia Tech possesses unique intellectual property, advanced research facilities, or a proven track record with similar, highly specialized systems that are not readily available from other sources. Further investigation into publicly available documentation or agency records would be necessary to confirm the exact justification.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract structure compare to other contract types for similar defense training systems, and what are the inherent risks?

The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract structure is common for research, development, and complex system integration efforts where the final costs are difficult to estimate precisely at the outset. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing their profit. This differs from fixed-price contracts, where the price is set regardless of actual costs, and cost-reimbursement contracts without a fixed fee. The primary risk of CPFF for the government is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor has less incentive to control costs compared to a fixed-price arrangement, beyond ensuring costs remain 'allowable' to secure reimbursement. However, the fixed fee provides some predictability regarding the contractor's profit margin. For similar defense training systems, especially those involving novel technology or integration, CPFF is often chosen to facilitate innovation and accommodate unforeseen technical challenges. The alternative, a fixed-price contract, might be used for more mature technologies or well-defined requirements, but could lead to contractor reluctance to address emergent issues or scope creep without additional funding requests.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'Unmanned Threat Emitter' systems or similar training technologies by the Department of Defense?

The provided data focuses on a single contract for the UNMANNED THREAT EMITTER (UMTE) THREAT KIT X (TK-12) and does not offer historical spending patterns for this specific category of systems. To determine historical spending, one would need to access broader federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending.gov) and query for similar North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes (e.g., 334511 - Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, and Control Equipment Manufacturing; or 334515 - Instrument Manufacturing Laboratories) or Product Service Codes (PSCs) related to threat emitters, simulation, and electronic warfare training. Analyzing spending over several fiscal years would reveal trends, identify major programs, and highlight key contractors in this niche. Without this broader data, it's impossible to contextualize the $28.4 million award within the DoD's overall investment in such technologies or to identify significant shifts in spending priorities.

What are the potential performance risks associated with integrating, fabricating, and testing remote emitter systems at diverse locations like NTTR and JPARC?

Integrating, fabricating, installing, and testing remote emitter systems at geographically dispersed and potentially austere locations like the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) and the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex (JPARC) presents several performance risks. These include logistical challenges in transporting equipment and personnel, environmental factors (extreme temperatures, remote access, terrain) impacting installation and testing, potential for damage during transit or setup, and the need for specialized on-site technical support. Ensuring interoperability of the fabricated systems with existing range infrastructure at both locations is critical and could face unforeseen technical hurdles. Furthermore, the effectiveness of testing is dependent on the realism and reliability of the emitter systems, which must function accurately under simulated combat conditions. Delays in installation or testing due to these factors could impact training schedules and readiness exercises, leading to cascading effects on military operations.

Given the sole-source nature, what oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure Georgia Tech Applied Research Corp. meets performance requirements and manages costs effectively?

While the data doesn't detail specific oversight mechanisms, standard DoD contracting procedures would apply, augmented by the nature of the sole-source award. The contracting officer and program management office within the Department of the Army are responsible for monitoring contractor performance against the contract's requirements and milestones. For a Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract, rigorous oversight of allowable costs is crucial. This typically involves regular audits, reviews of contractor financial reports, and performance assessments. The fixed fee provides a baseline, but the government must ensure that the costs incurred are reasonable and allocable to the contract. Surveillance might include technical reviews of system integration and testing, site visits to fabrication facilities and installation locations, and regular progress meetings. The Inspector General's office also provides an independent layer of oversight, investigating allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse, which can be particularly important in sole-source procurements where competition is absent.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Public Administration › National Security and International Affairs › National Security

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W91CRB17R0013

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Georgia Tech Research Corp

Address: 505 10TH ST, ATLANTA, GA, 30318

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Educational Institution, Higher Education, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Higher Education (Public), Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,384,725

Exercised Options: $28,428,766

Current Obligation: $28,428,766

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $28,652,810

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91CRB17D0010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline