DoD's $10.8M contract for communications equipment manufacturing awarded to DOUBLESHOT INC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,808,683 ($10.8M)

Contractor: Doubleshot Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-07-30

End Date: 2008-07-11

Contract Duration: 347 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (APPLIES TO AWARDS WHERE TWO OR MORE OF THE ABOVE APPLY)

Sector: Other

Official Description: VANGUARD SYSTEMS

Place of Performance

Location: ROHNERT PARK, SONOMA County, CALIFORNIA, 94928

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.8 million to DOUBLESHOT INC for work described as: VANGUARD SYSTEMS Key points: 1. Value for money appears questionable given the lack of competition and absence of detailed performance metrics. 2. Competition dynamics were limited, with the contract being sole-sourced. 3. Risk indicators include potential for overpricing due to sole-sourcing and limited transparency. 4. Performance context is unclear, with no specific details on deliverables or success criteria. 5. Sector positioning is within Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, a niche area. 6. The contract duration of 347 days suggests a focused, short-term need.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $10.8 million for 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' lacks sufficient detail for a robust value-for-money assessment. Without comparison to similar sole-sourced contracts or market benchmarks for this specific equipment, it's difficult to ascertain if the pricing was competitive. The absence of performance metrics further hinders an evaluation of whether the funds were used effectively to achieve desired outcomes.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning there was no open competition. This significantly limits the opportunity for price discovery and may lead to higher costs for the government. The lack of multiple bidders suggests that either DOUBLESHOT INC was the only capable provider or that the justification for sole-sourcing was not thoroughly vetted against broader market capabilities.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for this equipment due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government missed an opportunity to leverage market forces to secure a better price.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army is the primary beneficiary, receiving the specified communications equipment. The services delivered are related to the manufacturing of other communications equipment. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in California, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications are primarily within DOUBLESHOT INC, potentially supporting manufacturing jobs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing.
Absence of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess effectiveness.
Limited transparency in the sole-source justification process.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a specific entity for a defined need.
Contract has a clear start and end date.

Sector Analysis

The 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' sector encompasses a wide range of specialized products. This contract likely falls into a niche within this sector, possibly involving custom or proprietary equipment. Benchmarking spending in this specific sub-sector is challenging without more granular data on the type of equipment procured. The total federal spending on this NAICS code (334290) can provide a broader context, but individual contract values vary significantly based on product complexity and quantity.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem. The sole-source nature of the award further suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific procurement were likely minimal.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. As a sole-source award, the justification and approval process would be critical points of oversight. Transparency is limited due to the lack of public competition. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to potential fraud, waste, or abuse, but specific oversight activities related to performance or pricing are not evident.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Procurement
Communications Equipment Procurement
Sole Source Contracts
Manufacturing Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
Absence of performance metrics hinders effectiveness assessment.
Limited transparency in procurement process.
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.8 million to DOUBLESHOT INC. VANGUARD SYSTEMS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOUBLESHOT 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 $10.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-07-30. End: 2008-07-11.

What is the specific type of communications equipment manufactured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 334290, 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing.' However, it does not specify the exact type of equipment. This could range from specialized components to complete communication systems. Without further details, it's impossible to determine the precise nature of the manufactured goods. Understanding the specific equipment is crucial for assessing its criticality, potential obsolescence, and comparing its cost to similar items in the market.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and the award type is 'SOLE SOURCE'. However, the specific justification for this sole-source award is not provided. Typically, sole-source contracts are justified when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. Without the official justification document, it is impossible to verify the validity of the sole-source determination and assess whether competition was genuinely precluded or if it was simply not pursued.

How does the $10.8 million contract value compare to similar procurements for communications equipment?

Comparing the $10.8 million contract value is challenging without knowing the specific type and quantity of communications equipment procured. As a sole-source award, there are no direct competitive benchmarks. To assess value, one would need to identify comparable sole-source or competitively awarded contracts for similar equipment, considering factors like quantity, specifications, and delivery timelines. The absence of such comparisons in the provided data makes it difficult to determine if this represents a fair market price.

What performance metrics or deliverables were associated with this contract?

The provided data does not include any specific performance metrics, deliverables, or success criteria for this contract. This lack of detail makes it difficult to evaluate the contractor's performance or the overall effectiveness of the procurement. Standard contract oversight would typically involve defined milestones, quality standards, and delivery schedules. The absence of these suggests a potential gap in contract management and accountability, making it hard to ascertain if the government received the intended value.

What is the track record of DOUBLESHOT INC in fulfilling government contracts, particularly in communications equipment?

The provided data only includes information about this specific $10.8 million contract awarded to DOUBLESHOT INC. It does not offer insights into the company's broader track record with government contracts. To assess their reliability and past performance, one would need to examine their contract history, including past performance evaluations, any past disputes or terminations, and their experience with similar types of procurements. Without this historical context, it's difficult to gauge their capabilities and dependability.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: WEAPONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (APPLIES TO AWARDS WHERE TWO OR MORE OF THE ABOVE APPLY) (2)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1200 VALLEY HOUSE DR, ROHNERT PARK, CA, 94928

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,808,683

Exercised Options: $10,808,683

Current Obligation: $10,808,683

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline