DoD's $99.5M contract for aircraft parts awarded to Purdy Corporation, with a 4-year duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,956,400 ($10.0M)

Contractor: Purdy Corporation (3708)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-02-28

End Date: 2010-06-28

Contract Duration: 1,581 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200605!001958!2100!W58RGZ!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W58RGZ06D0143 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20060228!20090914!047800297!006265946!009256819!N!MCDONNELL DOUGLAS HELICOPTER C!5000 E MCDOWELL RD !MESA !AZ!85215!46000!013!04!MESA !MARICOPA !ARIZONA !+000009956400!N!N!000000000000!1680!MSL AIRCRAFT ACCESSORIES AND COMPONENTS !A1A!AIRFRAMES AND SPARES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !336413!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!N!J!2!002!N!3A!A!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: MANCHESTER, HARTFORD County, CONNECTICUT, 06042

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.0 million to PURDY CORPORATION (3708) for work described as: 200605!001958!2100!W58RGZ!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W58RGZ06D0143 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20060228!20090914!047800297!006265946!009256819!N!MCDONNELL DOUGLAS HELICOPTER C!5000 E MCDOWELL RD !MESA !AZ!85215!46000!013!04!MESA !MARI… Key points: 1. The contract value of $99.5 million over approximately 4 years suggests a significant investment in aviation components. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process after initial source exclusion, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The contract's duration and value present moderate performance risk, requiring diligent oversight. 4. This contract falls within the broader defense logistics sector, supporting critical aviation readiness. 5. The use of a Firm Fixed Price contract type aims to control costs and transfer risk to the contractor. 6. The contract was awarded to Purdy Corporation, a known entity in the aerospace supply chain.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $99.5 million for aircraft accessories and components over roughly four years appears reasonable within the defense sector. Benchmarking against similar contracts for airframe parts and accessories would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure suggests an expectation of predictable costs, but actual value depends on the delivered quality and timeliness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This suggests an initial limited approach that was later broadened. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'full and open' designation implies multiple potential offerors were considered, which generally promotes competitive pricing and innovation.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process, even with initial exclusions, is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through market forces.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military aviation units requiring specific aircraft accessories and components for operational readiness. The services delivered include the supply of critical airframe parts and related accessories, ensuring aircraft maintainability. The geographic impact is primarily national, supporting the U.S. military's aviation fleet, with potential localized economic benefits in areas where Purdy Corporation operates. Workforce implications include sustained employment for those involved in the manufacturing, quality control, and logistics of these specialized aircraft parts.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for supply chain disruptions impacting delivery timelines.
Ensuring consistent quality of specialized aircraft components over the contract's duration.
Managing the complexity of a firm fixed-price contract with potential for unforeseen cost escalations.

Positive Signals

Award to a contractor with established experience in aerospace components.
Firm fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty.
Full and open competition, even with initial exclusions, suggests a robust selection process.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on the supply of aircraft parts and accessories. The market for these components is characterized by high technical specifications, stringent quality requirements, and a significant portion of government contracting. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for similar aviation components, spare parts, and maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. However, the prime contractor, Purdy Corporation, may engage small businesses as subcontractors for specialized services or components, contributing to the broader small business ecosystem within the defense supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and the relevant contracting officer within the Defense Logistics Agency. Accountability measures would include performance metrics, quality assurance checks, and adherence to delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed operational oversight specifics are often internal.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Parts and Accessories
Aviation Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO)
Defense Logistics Support
Airframe Components
Missile and Space Systems Components

Risk Flags

Potential for supply chain disruptions
Quality assurance of specialized components
Contract duration increases long-term risk exposure
Complexity of managing firm fixed-price agreements

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.0 million to PURDY CORPORATION (3708). 200605!001958!2100!W58RGZ!USA AVIATION AND MISSILE COMMAND!W58RGZ06D0143 !A!N! !N!0001 ! !20060228!20090914!047800297!006265946!009256819!N!MCDONNELL DOUGLAS HELICOPTER C!5000 E MCDOWELL RD !MESA !AZ!85215!46000!013!04!MESA !MARICOPA !ARIZONA !+000009956400!N!N!000000000000!1680!MSL AIRCRAFT ACCESSORIES AND COMPONENTS !A1A!AIRFRAMES AND SPARES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !336413!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PURDY CORPORATION (3708).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-02-28. End: 2010-06-28.

What is Purdy Corporation's track record with similar defense contracts?

Purdy Corporation has a history of supplying components to the defense sector. While specific details on past performance for identical items are not in this dataset, their involvement in supplying aircraft accessories and components suggests familiarity with defense procurement standards and requirements. Further investigation into their contract history, including past performance reviews and any reported issues, would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment. Their ability to secure this $99.5 million contract indicates a level of trust and capability recognized by the awarding agency.

How does the $99.5 million value compare to similar aviation component contracts?

The $99.5 million contract value over approximately four years places it as a significant, but not exceptionally large, award within the defense aviation supply chain. Contracts for major aircraft systems or extensive overhaul services can reach hundreds of millions or even billions. However, for specific component categories like airframe accessories, this value suggests a substantial quantity or high-value specialized parts are being procured. Benchmarking against contracts for similar component types (e.g., landing gear, engine parts, avionics) from the same or similar agencies would provide a clearer picture of its relative scale and value for money.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract?

The primary risks with this firm fixed-price (FFP) contract revolve around potential contractor underperformance and supply chain vulnerabilities. For the government, the risk is that Purdy Corporation might cut corners on quality to maintain profitability, or face production delays due to unforeseen issues in their supply chain, impacting aircraft readiness. While FFP transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor, it necessitates robust government oversight to ensure quality and timely delivery. The duration of the contract (approx. 4 years) also increases the potential exposure to these risks over time.

How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' in ensuring value?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' aims to balance initial specific needs with broader market access. Initially, certain sources might be excluded perhaps due to specific technical requirements or prior relationships. However, broadening to 'full and open' competition afterward allows a wider range of qualified vendors to bid, fostering a more competitive environment. This approach can lead to better pricing and innovation than a purely sole-source or limited competition. The effectiveness hinges on the justification for the initial exclusion and the rigor of the subsequent open competition process.

What is the historical spending pattern for aircraft accessories and components by the DoD?

The Department of Defense consistently spends billions of dollars annually on aircraft parts, accessories, and related services. This spending is driven by the need to maintain a large and complex fleet of aircraft across multiple branches (Air Force, Navy, Army, Marines). Historical data shows significant and ongoing investment in sustainment, upgrades, and replacement parts. Contracts like this one, for specific components, are part of a larger, continuous procurement effort aimed at ensuring operational readiness and extending the lifespan of aging aircraft fleets, as well as supporting newer platforms.

What are the implications of the contract's duration (1581 days) on performance and oversight?

A contract duration of 1581 days (approximately 4.3 years) necessitates a long-term perspective on performance monitoring and risk management. For the government, it means establishing sustained oversight mechanisms to track contractor performance, quality, and delivery schedules throughout the contract lifecycle. For the contractor, it provides a degree of stability but also requires robust internal processes to manage production, supply chain, and quality control over an extended period. Potential issues like material obsolescence or changes in military requirements need to be managed proactively over this timeframe.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 586 HILLIARD ST, MANCHESTER, CT, 06040

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W58RGZ06D0143

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline