DoD's $26M Contract for Source/Receiver Tech Development with UMass Lowell Raises Questions on Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,062,602 ($26.1M)

Contractor: University of Massachusetts Lowell

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-16

End Date: 2011-09-22

Contract Duration: 1,832 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: DEVELOP OF SOURCE/RECEIVER TECHNOLOGIES

Place of Performance

Location: LOWELL, MIDDLESEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01854

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.1 million to UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL for work described as: DEVELOP OF SOURCE/RECEIVER TECHNOLOGIES Key points: 1. Significant investment of $26M in specialized engineering services. 2. Sole-source award to a university raises questions about competitive pricing. 3. Long contract duration (2006-2011) may indicate evolving or complex requirements. 4. Focus on R&D suggests potential for future technological advancements.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract type is 'COST NO FEE', which can be complex to assess for value as the government bears the cost. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to benchmark pricing against similar services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The award was not competed, indicating a sole-source justification. This limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers compared to a competitive process.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition for a $26M contract suggests potential overpayment and inefficient use of taxpayer funds.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may have funded research without exploring more cost-effective alternatives. The specific technologies developed could have dual-use applications, impacting national security or commercial sectors. University research partnerships can be valuable, but transparency in contracting is crucial.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Cost-plus contract type
Long contract duration

Positive Signals

Potential for cutting-edge research
University partnership

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under Engineering Services (NAICS 541330), a sector often characterized by specialized expertise. Benchmarking is difficult without comparable sole-source university research contracts.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to involve small businesses, as it was awarded directly to a university. There is no indication of subcontracting opportunities for small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

The sole-source nature of this award warrants scrutiny to ensure the government received fair value and explored all competitive options. Oversight should focus on the justification for not competing.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Army Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competitive bidding
Potential for inflated costs due to sole-source award
Cost-plus contract type shifts risk to government
Limited transparency on justification for sole-source
Unclear return on investment for taxpayer funds

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.1 million to UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL. DEVELOP OF SOURCE/RECEIVER TECHNOLOGIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-16. End: 2011-09-22.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to the University of Massachusetts Lowell, and were alternative competitive proposals considered?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A sole-source award typically requires a documented justification, such as unique capabilities or specialized knowledge possessed by the contractor that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Without this justification, it's impossible to assess if taxpayer funds were used efficiently or if competitive alternatives were overlooked.

How was the 'COST NO FEE' pricing structure managed to ensure cost control and prevent overruns, given the significant contract value?

The 'COST NO FEE' (CNF) contract type means the government reimburses the contractor for allowable costs but pays no fee or profit. While this can be used for research and development where costs are uncertain, it places the entire cost risk on the government. Effective oversight would involve rigorous monitoring of expenditures to ensure they are reasonable, allocable, and allowable, preventing unnecessary spending.

What tangible outcomes or technological advancements resulted from this $26M investment, and how were they evaluated for effectiveness?

The data does not specify the outcomes or effectiveness of the 'DEVELOP OF SOURCE/RECEIVER TECHNOLOGIES'. For R&D contracts, especially those awarded without competition, clear deliverables and performance metrics are crucial. Post-award evaluations and reporting mechanisms would be necessary to determine if the $26M investment yielded the intended technological advancements and met the Department of the Army's objectives.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: University of Massachusetts (UEI: 079520631)

Address: 600 SUFFOLK ST FL 2 S, LOWELL, MA, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Educational Institution, Government, Higher Education, Not Designated a Small Business, U.S. Regional/State Government, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,261,713

Exercised Options: $26,302,905

Current Obligation: $26,062,602

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline