New IRobot Contract Unrelated to Lawsuit (and Not Actually Issued Yet)

Never let it be said that Xconomy doesn’t look out for its readers. Yesterday you asked us to look into an intriguing posting on a government website about what looked to be a new $200 million contract for iRobot—marked with a date suspiciously close to when the Army set aside the $279.9 million “xBot” contract that had been awarded to rival Robotic FX in September. Today, we have the skinny.

A spokesperson for Burlington, MA-based iRobot (NASDAQ: IRBT), Nancy Dussault Smith, says that the new contract is totally unrelated to the xBot contract, and to the ongoing legal battle between iRobot and Robotic FX. (For the latest on that case, check out this and this.) What’s more, Smith was quick to point out, the new $200 million contract has not been issued yet.

Indeed, what the government posted is actually a noticed of its intent to issue a contract worth up to $200 million for spare parts, repair services, training, replacement systems, and so forth relating to iRobot technology that’s already being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that contract will not be issued until an existing contract hits its ceiling of roughly $64 million, Smith says. Some $19 million is left on that contract, which was originally awarded in June, 2006.

IRobot opened up 5.4 percent today, at $15.52, perhaps on chatter about the new contract.

Rebecca is Xconomy's co-founder. Follow @

Trending on Xconomy

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

2 responses to “New IRobot Contract Unrelated to Lawsuit (and Not Actually Issued Yet)”

  1. Paul says:

    This is a fantastic scoop. Kudos to Rebecca. No other site has this story and it is important for IRBT shareholders. It would seem that one day this will “official” and iRobot will announce it. We got the inside scoop on a $200 million contract!!

  2. Tom says:

    Yes. Thank you for your excellent and timely reporting.

    Any chance you could do it again and find out what’s happening in the Alabama IRBT case?