Army awards $10.7M contract for photographic equipment, highlighting sole-source procurement
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $10,663,077 ($10.7M)
Contractor: General Atomics
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2006-03-08
End Date: 2007-03-31
Contract Duration: 388 days
Daily Burn Rate: $27.5K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: 200606!600539!2100!W9124Q!ACA, WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE !W9124Q06C0106 !A!N! !N! ! !20060308!20061231!067638957!067638957!859181984!N!GENERAL ATOMICS !3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!66000!073!06!SAN DIEGO !SAN DIEGO !CALIFORNIA!+000009998850!N!N!000009998850!6760!PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIP !000 !* !333315!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !N!A!D!U!U!1!001!N!2A!A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! !Y!2100!W9124Q!0001! !
Place of Performance
Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92101
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $10.7 million to GENERAL ATOMICS for work described as: 200606!600539!2100!W9124Q!ACA, WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE !W9124Q06C0106 !A!N! !N! ! !20060308!20061231!067638957!067638957!859181984!N!GENERAL ATOMICS !3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!66000!073!06!SAN DIEGO !SAN … Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about competition and potential cost savings. 2. The contract value of $10.7M for photographic equipment suggests a need for specialized or high-end gear. 3. A short performance period of approximately one year may indicate a specific project or urgent requirement. 4. The award to General Atomics, a known defense contractor, suggests a reliance on established suppliers for critical equipment. 5. The 'Not Competed' status warrants further investigation into the justification for avoiding a competitive bidding process. 6. The contract's classification under 'Photographic Equipment and Accessories' points to a niche but essential support function.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The contract value of $10.7 million for photographic equipment and accessories appears substantial for a one-year duration. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark this price against market rates or similar government procurements. The 'Not Competed' status means there's no direct comparison to assess if the government secured the best possible value. Further analysis would be needed to determine if this price is reasonable for the specific equipment and services provided.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not openly competed. The data indicates the contracting agency did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required goods or services, or in cases of urgent need. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the lowest possible price.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. It also reduces transparency in the procurement process.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary of this contract is likely the Department of the Army, which will receive specialized photographic equipment. The services delivered include the provision of photographic equipment and accessories, crucial for intelligence, surveillance, or operational documentation. The geographic impact is centered around the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, where the contract is associated. The contract may indirectly support a specialized workforce within the Army responsible for operating and maintaining this equipment.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition raises concerns about price reasonableness and potential for inflated costs.
- Sole-source justification needs thorough review to ensure it was appropriate and not a missed opportunity for savings.
- Limited transparency due to non-competitive award makes it difficult to assess overall value for money.
Positive Signals
- Award to a known contractor like General Atomics may indicate reliability and established performance.
- The contract addresses a specific need for photographic equipment, suggesting a targeted and necessary procurement.
Sector Analysis
The procurement of photographic equipment falls within the broader electronics and communication equipment sector. This sector is characterized by rapid technological advancements and a mix of large defense contractors and specialized smaller firms. Government spending in this area often supports national security, intelligence gathering, and operational readiness. Benchmarking this contract's value would require comparing it to similar procurements of advanced photographic systems by defense agencies, considering factors like resolution, durability, and specialized features.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by the 'N' flags for small business participation. The prime contractor, General Atomics, is a large business. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans to small businesses. This suggests that the primary focus of this award was not on stimulating small business participation.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and financial management offices. Given the sole-source nature, there may be heightened scrutiny from internal audit functions or potentially the Government Accountability Office (GAO) if a protest were filed. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive award, making external oversight more challenging.
Related Government Programs
- Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) procurements
- National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) contracts
- Army Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM) equipment purchases
- Tactical Surveillance Equipment contracts
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award requires justification review.
- Potential for non-competitive pricing.
- Limited transparency in procurement process.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, sole-source, photographic-equipment, general-atomics, cost-plus-fixed-fee, california, new-mexico, intelligence-surveillance-reconnaissance, not-competed
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $10.7 million to GENERAL ATOMICS. 200606!600539!2100!W9124Q!ACA, WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE !W9124Q06C0106 !A!N! !N! ! !20060308!20061231!067638957!067638957!859181984!N!GENERAL ATOMICS !3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT !SAN DIEGO !CA!92121!66000!073!06!SAN DIEGO !SAN DIEGO !CALIFORNIA!+000009998850!N!N!000009998850!6760!PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT AND ACCESSORIES !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIP !000 !* !333315!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !999
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GENERAL ATOMICS.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $10.7 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-03-08. End: 2007-03-31.
What specific type of photographic equipment was procured under this contract, and what are its intended uses?
The contract data specifies 'Photographic Equipment and Accessories' under the Product Service Code (PSC) A7. While the exact specifications are not detailed in the provided data, the context of a sole-source award to General Atomics by the Army at White Sands Missile Range suggests the equipment is likely specialized and potentially high-performance. This could include advanced imaging systems, surveillance cameras, or equipment for testing and documentation of missile tests and other military operations. The 'Not Competed' status implies a unique capability or urgent need that may have precluded a broader solicitation.
Can the $10.7 million contract value be considered reasonable given the sole-source nature and one-year duration?
Assessing the reasonableness of the $10.7 million contract value is challenging without a competitive process. Sole-source awards inherently lack the price discovery mechanism of open competition. To evaluate reasonableness, one would need to compare this price against historical data for similar specialized photographic equipment procured competitively by the Department of Defense, analyze General Atomics' pricing structure for comparable commercial items, or review any independent government cost estimates that may have been developed. The relatively short performance period (approximately one year) suggests this might be for a specific project or a rapid deployment need, which can sometimes command higher unit prices than long-term, high-volume contracts.
What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?
The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. Government regulations typically allow for sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or in cases of urgent and compelling need where delaying procurement would cause serious injury to the government. Without access to the specific justification documentation (e.g., a Justification and Approval document), it's impossible to know the precise reason. However, the award to General Atomics, a company known for advanced technology solutions, might suggest a proprietary technology or a unique capability requirement that only they could fulfill at the time of procurement.
What is General Atomics' track record with the Department of Defense, particularly in providing photographic or related equipment?
General Atomics is a well-established defense contractor with a significant history of working with the Department of Defense across various programs, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), advanced electronics, and propulsion systems. While they are widely recognized for their work in areas like the Predator and Reaper drones, which involve sophisticated sensor and imaging payloads, their specific track record in providing standalone 'photographic equipment and accessories' as a primary offering might be less prominent. However, their expertise in complex systems integration and advanced technology suggests they possess the capability to supply specialized photographic gear, especially if it integrates with larger platforms or requires advanced technical support.
How does this contract compare to other federal spending on photographic equipment and accessories?
This $10.7 million contract represents a significant single award for photographic equipment. Federal spending on this category can fluctuate based on agency needs, technological upgrades, and specific operational requirements. Comparing this to overall federal spending requires analyzing broader categories like 'Photographic and Photocopying Equipment Manufacturing' (NAICS 333315) or specific defense appropriations for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets. While $10.7 million is substantial for one contract, it may be a relatively small portion of the total annual federal expenditure on advanced imaging and sensor technology, which often runs into billions when considering integrated systems for aircraft, satellites, and ground platforms.
What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude?
The primary risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude include: 1) Paying a non-competitive price, potentially exceeding fair market value. 2) Lack of innovation, as there's no incentive for the contractor to offer superior solutions beyond the minimum requirements. 3) Potential for vendor lock-in, making future procurements difficult or expensive. 4) Reduced transparency and accountability, making it harder to scrutinize the value delivered. 5) The possibility that a competitive process might have identified alternative, potentially more cost-effective or technologically advanced solutions.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Photographic and Photocopying Equipment Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: PHOTOGRAPHIC EQPT
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 3550 GENERAL ATOMICS CT, SAN DIEGO, CA, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-03-08
Current End Date: 2007-03-31
Potential End Date: 2007-03-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2012-09-19
More Contracts from General Atomics
- CVN 79 Emals Long Lead Time Material — $1.7B (Department of Defense)
- 200310!000495!1700!A8050 !naval AIR Warfare Center, Aircra!n6833503c0205 !A!N! !N! !20030728!20041028!067638957!067638957!859181984!n!general Atomics !3550 General Atomics Court!san Diego !ca!92121!66000!073!06!san Diego !SAN Diego !california!+000004883000!n!n!000107026822!1710!aircraft Landing Equipment !c9e!all Other Supplies and Equipme!2000!not Discernable or Classified !336413!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!y!u!2!002!b! !A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $928.2M (Department of Defense)
- CVN 78 Production Emals — $710.8M (Department of Defense)
- 200411!001061!1700!A8050 !naval AIR Warfare Center, Aircra!n6833504c0167 !A!N! !N! ! !20040402!20090403!067638957!067638957!859181984!n!general Atomics !3550 General Atomics Court!san Diego !ca!92121!37800!029!34!lakehurst AIR Engine!ocean !NEW Jersey!+000016000000!n!n!000145621824!1710!aircraft Landing Equipment !a1c!other Aircraft Equipment !223 !cvn(x) !541710!A!A!3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1g!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !z!b!a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $590.2M (Department of Defense)
- CVN 81 Emals Pre-Production Planning — $511.0M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)