Department of the Army awarded $10.2M for ballistic helmets under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,248,435 ($10.2M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-12-10

End Date: 2008-01-12

Contract Duration: 398 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: {PIIN: W91GY007C0003} BALLISTIC HELMETS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91GY007C0003} BALLISTIC HELMETS Key points: 1. The contract value of $10.2 million for ballistic helmets represents a significant investment in soldier protection. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding process, which could lead to better pricing. 3. The contract duration of approximately 13 months (398 days) indicates a relatively short-term need for these items. 4. The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' raises questions about the geographic origin and supply chain for these critical defense items. 5. The fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, which is generally favorable for the government. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this contract was not specifically targeted to boost small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific details on the quantity and type of ballistic helmets procured. The total award of $10.2 million is a substantial sum, but its value-for-money depends heavily on the unit price and the quality of the protective gear. Comparing it to similar contracts for ballistic helmets would require access to detailed procurement data, including specifications and quantities. The fixed-price nature of the contract is a positive indicator, as it caps the government's expenditure.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This suggests a robust bidding process designed to maximize competition. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open nature of the competition generally promotes price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government. The agency aimed to solicit offers from a wide range of potential suppliers.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition process is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining goods and services at the most competitive prices available in the market.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are military personnel who will receive enhanced ballistic protection. The services delivered include the provision of essential protective equipment, directly impacting soldier survivability. The geographic impact is likely global, as the Department of Defense procures equipment for deployment worldwide. Workforce implications are minimal in terms of direct job creation from this specific contract, but it supports jobs within the defense manufacturing sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' raises concerns about supply chain transparency and potential reliance on foreign sources for critical defense equipment.
Lack of specific details on helmet specifications and quantities makes it difficult to assess the true value for money.
The relatively short contract duration might indicate a stop-gap measure or a specific, limited deployment need, rather than a long-term strategic procurement.

Positive Signals

The use of 'Full and Open Competition' is a positive signal for achieving competitive pricing.
The 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' contract type effectively transfers cost overrun risks to the contractor.
The procurement addresses a critical need for soldier protection, aligning with defense readiness objectives.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector relies heavily on specialized equipment like ballistic helmets to ensure personnel safety. The market for body armor and protective gear is competitive, with numerous domestic and international manufacturers. This contract fits within the broader category of defense procurement for personal protective equipment (PPE). Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific type and quantity of helmets, but significant investments are common for equipping military forces.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. This suggests that the primary focus was on obtaining the best value through open competition, rather than specifically targeting small business participation. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular award may be limited, though larger prime contractors might engage small businesses in their supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified goods within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, though detailed specifications and performance metrics may not always be publicly disclosed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Personal Protective Equipment Procurement
Army Combat Support Equipment Contracts
Ballistic Protection Systems
Foreign Military Sales (if applicable to awardees)

Risk Flags

Supply Chain Risk (Foreign Awardees)
Lack of Specificity (Helmet Type/Quantity)
Potential for Higher Unit Costs (if competition was limited in practice)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91GY007C0003} BALLISTIC HELMETS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-12-10. End: 2008-01-12.

What specific type and quantity of ballistic helmets were procured under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact type or quantity of ballistic helmets procured under PIIN W91GY007C0003. The total award amount is $10,248,435. To assess the value for money, it would be crucial to know the number of units purchased and the specific model or standard (e.g., ACH, ECH, IHPS) that the helmets meet. Without this information, it is difficult to benchmark the per-unit cost against market rates or other government procurements. The contract's classification as 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' also adds a layer of complexity to understanding the supply chain and origin of these critical safety items.

How does the $10.2 million contract value compare to typical spending on ballistic helmets by the Department of the Army?

Comparing the $10.2 million contract value requires context regarding the typical volume and frequency of ballistic helmet procurements by the Department of the Army. The Army procures vast quantities of equipment, and spending on personal protective equipment can fluctuate based on operational tempo, troop levels, and technological upgrades. A single contract of this size could represent a significant portion of annual spending for a specific helmet model or could be one of many such awards. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to analyze historical spending data for similar helmet categories over several fiscal years, considering factors like inflation and changes in threat assessments that drive demand for advanced protection.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding defense contracts to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees'?

Awarding defense contracts to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' can introduce several risks. These include potential supply chain vulnerabilities, geopolitical instability affecting delivery, differing quality control standards, and challenges in enforcing contract terms or intellectual property rights. There may also be concerns regarding the security of sensitive technologies or data. Furthermore, reliance on foreign sources for critical defense equipment can impact domestic industrial base readiness and national security. The government typically employs rigorous vetting processes and quality assurance measures when contracting with foreign entities, but inherent risks remain compared to domestic sourcing.

What does the 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' contract type imply for this ballistic helmet procurement?

The 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' (FFP) contract type signifies that the contractor bears the primary responsibility for all costs incurred to complete the work, regardless of the actual expenses. This means the agreed-upon price is final, and the government is protected from cost overruns. For the Department of the Army, this offers budget certainty and predictability. However, it also places a significant burden on the contractor to accurately estimate costs, manage resources efficiently, and absorb any unforeseen expenses. If the contractor underestimates costs, they risk reduced profit margins or even a loss on the contract. Conversely, if they accurately estimate or manage costs well, they can achieve a higher profit.

What is the significance of the contract duration (398 days) in the context of ballistic helmet acquisition?

A contract duration of 398 days (approximately 13 months) for ballistic helmets suggests a relatively short-term procurement cycle. This could indicate several possibilities: it might be fulfilling an immediate operational need, replacing aging equipment, or serving as a bridge contract while a longer-term strategy or a more comprehensive solicitation is developed. It is less likely to represent a multi-year program for equipping the entire force unless it's part of a larger, phased acquisition strategy. The duration impacts delivery schedules and the government's ability to adapt to evolving threats or technological advancements in protective gear.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: MISCELLANEOUS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,248,435

Exercised Options: $10,248,435

Current Obligation: $10,248,435

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline