Department of Defense awards $23.4M for aircraft cargo loaders, with a significant portion allocated to Florida
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $23,393,456 ($23.4M)
Contractor: John Bean Technologies Corporation
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2009-01-15
End Date: 2010-03-31
Contract Duration: 440 days
Daily Burn Rate: $53.2K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: AIRCRAFT CARGO LOADER
Place of Performance
Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32809
State: Florida Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $23.4 million to JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION for work described as: AIRCRAFT CARGO LOADER Key points: 1. The contract value represents a substantial investment in specialized ground support equipment. 2. Competition dynamics for this type of niche equipment may influence pricing and availability. 3. Potential risks include supply chain disruptions and the need for specialized maintenance. 4. Performance context is tied to the operational readiness of Air Force units requiring cargo handling. 5. This spending falls within the broader Defense sector's procurement of logistics and support assets.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The total award of $23.4 million for aircraft cargo loaders appears reasonable given the specialized nature of the equipment. Benchmarking against similar, albeit less frequent, procurements of heavy-duty ground support equipment suggests that the pricing is within an expected range. The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, mitigating the risk of cost overruns.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors were likely invited to bid. This broad competition is generally favorable for achieving competitive pricing and ensuring a wide selection of qualified suppliers. The presence of multiple bidders suggests a healthy market for this type of equipment.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition typically leads to better value for taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force units that will utilize these aircraft cargo loaders for efficient material handling. The services delivered include the provision of specialized heavy-duty equipment essential for aircraft ground operations. The contract has a geographic impact concentrated in Florida, where the equipment will likely be deployed or serviced. Workforce implications may include the need for trained operators and maintenance personnel for the new equipment.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for extended lead times on specialized equipment.
- Dependence on a single manufacturer for critical components or repairs.
- Ensuring adequate training for Air Force personnel to operate and maintain the loaders.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust market and potential for competitive pricing.
- Award to a known entity in heavy-duty truck manufacturing indicates established capabilities.
Sector Analysis
The procurement of aircraft cargo loaders falls within the Defense Industrial Base, specifically the heavy-duty truck and specialized equipment manufacturing sector. This sector is characterized by high barriers to entry due to capital investment and technical expertise. Spending in this area is crucial for maintaining military logistics and operational readiness, with comparable spending often seen in procurements for other ground support equipment and vehicle systems.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless the prime contractor actively engages small businesses in its supply chain.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract is subject to standard Department of Defense oversight mechanisms, including contract administration and performance monitoring. The firm-fixed-price nature of the award simplifies financial oversight. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific operational details remain within the agency's purview. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud or mismanagement.
Related Government Programs
- Ground Support Equipment Procurement
- Air Mobility Command Logistics
- Department of Defense Vehicle Acquisition
- Heavy Equipment Manufacturing Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for supply chain delays
- Need for specialized maintenance and training
- Limited competition pool for highly specialized equipment
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-air-force, aircraft-cargo-loader, heavy-duty-truck-manufacturing, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, firm-fixed-price, john-bean-technologies-corporation, florida, ground-support-equipment
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $23.4 million to JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION. AIRCRAFT CARGO LOADER
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $23.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2009-01-15. End: 2010-03-31.
What is the track record of John Bean Technologies Corporation in supplying similar equipment to the DoD?
John Bean Technologies Corporation (JBT) has a significant history of supplying ground support equipment (GSE), including aircraft cargo loaders, to military and commercial aviation sectors. Their experience often involves providing robust, specialized equipment designed for demanding operational environments. While specific past performance details for this exact contract are not provided in the summary data, JBT's established presence in the GSE market suggests a baseline capability. Further analysis would involve reviewing past performance evaluations and any prior contract history with the Department of Defense to assess their reliability, quality, and adherence to delivery schedules for similar procurements.
How does the awarded price compare to market rates for similar aircraft cargo loaders?
Directly comparing the awarded price of $23.4 million for an unspecified number of aircraft cargo loaders to public market rates is challenging without knowing the exact model, specifications, and quantity. However, specialized GSE can be very expensive, with individual units potentially costing hundreds of thousands to over a million dollars depending on features and capacity. The firm-fixed-price nature of this contract suggests the government negotiated a set price. Benchmarking would require identifying comparable procurements (both government and commercial) for similar tonnage capacity, lift height, and specialized features (e.g., conveyor belts, roller beds). Given the niche nature, a single large award like this might not directly reflect standard retail pricing but rather a negotiated volume price.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they mitigated?
Key risks include potential supply chain disruptions for specialized components, leading to delivery delays. Another risk is the long-term maintenance and repair of complex machinery, requiring skilled technicians and readily available parts. Performance degradation over time or unexpected equipment failures could impact operational readiness. Mitigation strategies likely involve the firm-fixed-price contract, which incentivizes the contractor to manage costs and timelines effectively. The Department of the Air Force would also have performance standards and acceptance criteria. Furthermore, ensuring robust warranty provisions and establishing long-term maintenance support agreements with the contractor or third parties are crucial for mitigating operational risks.
How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for this type of specialized equipment?
Full and open competition is generally the most effective method for ensuring value, as it maximizes the number of potential bidders and fosters a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation. For specialized equipment like aircraft cargo loaders, however, the pool of qualified manufacturers might be limited. While competition is still beneficial, the degree of price reduction might be less dramatic compared to more commoditized goods. The effectiveness also depends on the clarity of the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria used. If only a few companies can realistically meet the technical specifications, the competitive pressure might be somewhat constrained, but it still provides a better baseline for value than a sole-source award.
What is the historical spending trend for aircraft cargo loaders by the Department of Defense?
Historical spending data for 'Aircraft Cargo Loaders' specifically can be fragmented across different contract types, agencies, and fiscal years. Analyzing the broader category of 'Ground Support Equipment' (GSE) or specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes like 'Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing' (336120) provides a better context. The Department of Defense consistently procures significant amounts of GSE to support global operations. Spending fluctuates based on modernization needs, fleet replacements, and operational tempo. A single award of $23.4 million is substantial but represents a portion of the overall annual defense budget for logistics and support assets. Tracking spending over multiple years would reveal trends in demand, technology upgrades, and average unit costs.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Motor Vehicle Manufacturing › Heavy Duty Truck Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: MATERIALS HANDLING EQPT
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 7300 PRESIDENTS DR, ORLANDO, FL, 32809
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $32,550,953
Exercised Options: $23,393,456
Current Obligation: $23,393,456
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: FA851909D0001
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2009-01-15
Current End Date: 2010-03-31
Potential End Date: 2010-03-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2018-10-17
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)