Naval Air Warfare Center Training contract awarded to CAE USA INC. for $175.3M over 8 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $98,652,436 ($98.7M)

Contractor: CAE USA Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-02-09

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,156 days

Daily Burn Rate: $31.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200406!000027!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133903D5017 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20040209!20090203!175339498!175339498!175339498!N!D P ASSOCIATES, INC !3401 COLUMBIA PIKE - 4TH F!ARLINGTON !VA!22204!60650!037!24!PATUXENT RIVER NAS !ST. MARY S !MARYLAND !+000004065137!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !* !511199!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!U!U!2!001!K! !A!N!D! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !A! !B!A!00 !A!B!N! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, TARRANT County, TEXAS, 76011

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $98.7 million to CAE USA INC. for work described as: 200406!000027!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133903D5017 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20040209!20090203!175339498!175339498!175339498!N!D P ASSOCIATES, INC !3401 COLUMBIA PIKE - 4TH F!ARLINGTON !VA!22204!60650!037!24!PATUXENT RIVER NAS !ST. … Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of training services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Potential for cost overruns exists with Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type. 4. Contract duration of 8 years indicates a long-term need for these services. 5. Services are critical for maintaining pilot proficiency and operational readiness. 6. Geographic focus on Patuxent River, Maryland, aligns with naval aviation training hubs.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total contract value of $175.3 million over approximately 8 years averages to about $21.9 million per year. This appears to be a reasonable amount for specialized training services for naval aviation, considering the complexity and criticality of maintaining pilot skills. Benchmarking against similar large-scale training contracts for military aviation would provide a more precise value assessment, but the initial figures do not raise immediate red flags.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely solicited and evaluated. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, encouraging bidders to offer their best pricing and technical solutions to secure the award. The presence of competition is a positive sign for price discovery and ensuring taxpayer value.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition suggests that taxpayers benefited from a potentially lower price due to multiple companies vying for the contract. This process helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for the required training services.

Public Impact

Naval aviators and aircrew benefit from advanced training to maintain proficiency. Services delivered include training aids and potentially simulation-based instruction. Geographic impact is concentrated around Patuxent River NAS, Maryland. Workforce implications include support personnel for training operations and maintenance.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts can lead to cost overruns if not closely managed.
Long contract duration may not always reflect the most current technological needs.
Reliance on a single primary contractor for critical training could pose a risk if performance falters.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
Contract value appears reasonable for the scope and duration of specialized training.
Long-term contract indicates a sustained and critical need for these services by the Navy.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense sector, specifically focusing on training and simulation services. The market for defense training is substantial, driven by the continuous need for military readiness and technological advancement. CAE USA Inc. is a significant player in this market, providing a range of simulation and training solutions to various defense organizations globally. This contract represents a key piece of spending within the training aids and simulation sub-sector.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication of small business set-asides for this contract. While the primary awardee is CAE USA Inc., a large defense contractor, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement and subcontracting plans.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), ensuring compliance with contract terms and performance standards. The Department of Defense has established procurement regulations and oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency in its contracting processes. Inspector General reviews may also be applicable.

Related Government Programs

Naval Aviation Training Programs
Flight Simulation Contracts
Defense Training Services
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPFF structure
Long contract duration may not reflect current technological needs
Dependence on a single contractor for critical training functions

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $98.7 million to CAE USA INC.. 200406!000027!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133903D5017 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20040209!20090203!175339498!175339498!175339498!N!D P ASSOCIATES, INC !3401 COLUMBIA PIKE - 4TH F!ARLINGTON !VA!22204!60650!037!24!PATUXENT RIVER NAS !ST. MARY S !MARYLAND !+000004065137!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !* !511199!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CAE USA INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $98.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-02-09. End: 2012-09-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for training aids and simulation services at the Naval Air Warfare Center Training?

Historical spending data for training aids and simulation services at the Naval Air Warfare Center Training (NAWCT) would reveal trends in investment in this area. Analyzing past contracts, including their values, durations, and awarded contractors, can indicate whether this $175.3 million contract represents a significant increase or a continuation of established spending levels. It can also highlight shifts in technology or service requirements over time. For instance, if previous contracts were smaller or focused on different types of training aids, this contract might signify an expansion of capabilities or a move towards more advanced simulation technologies. Understanding this historical context is crucial for assessing the current contract's scale and strategic importance within the NAWCT's overall budget and mission.

How does the pricing structure of this Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract compare to other similar training contracts?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure means the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. Comparing this structure to similar training contracts is essential for value assessment. If other comparable contracts utilize fixed-price or other incentive-based structures, it raises questions about why CPFF was chosen here. CPFF contracts can offer flexibility for evolving requirements but also carry a higher risk of cost overruns for the government if not meticulously managed. Analyzing the fixed fee percentage relative to the total estimated cost against industry benchmarks for similar services would indicate whether the profit margin is reasonable. A higher-than-average fixed fee, without clear justification (e.g., high risk, novel technology), could suggest less favorable pricing for the government.

What are the specific performance metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) associated with this contract?

Understanding the specific performance metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is crucial for assessing the effectiveness and value of this training contract. These metrics would define what constitutes successful delivery of training services, such as pilot proficiency rates, simulation fidelity, system uptime, training completion rates, and adherence to schedules. Without defined KPIs, it is difficult to objectively measure the contractor's performance and ensure that the $175.3 million investment is yielding the desired operational outcomes for naval aviators. The contract documents should outline these KPIs, and the government's oversight mechanisms should track performance against them to ensure accountability and identify any areas needing improvement or corrective action.

What is the track record of CAE USA INC. in delivering similar large-scale military training solutions?

CAE USA Inc. has a well-established track record in providing complex simulation and training solutions to military organizations globally, including the U.S. Department of Defense. They are known for their expertise in developing and operating flight simulators, virtual training environments, and associated support services. Their experience often includes large, long-term contracts similar to this one, covering a wide range of aircraft platforms and training requirements. Evaluating their past performance on contracts of comparable size, scope, and complexity, including any past performance issues or successes, provides critical insight into their capability to successfully execute this Naval Air Warfare Center Training contract and deliver the expected value.

How has the scope of training services evolved over the life of this contract, and has the value been adjusted accordingly?

This contract has a significant duration, spanning from February 2004 to September 2012 (original award and subsequent modifications). Over such a long period, the scope of training services, technologies, and requirements can evolve considerably. Analyzing contract modifications would reveal if changes in scope, such as the incorporation of new training technologies, updated aircraft systems, or expanded training scenarios, have led to adjustments in the contract's total value. Understanding how the government managed these potential scope changes and whether the value adjustments were justified based on the added services or increased costs is key to assessing the overall value and management of the contract throughout its lifecycle.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CAE Inc

Address: 2200 ARLINGTON DOWNS RD, ARLINGTON, TX, 76011

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6133903D5017

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline