Army awards $59.4M for Light Tactical Trailers, with 15 orders placed

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $59,391,126 ($59.4M)

Contractor: Silver Eagle Manufacturing CO

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-19

End Date: 2009-12-31

Contract Duration: 468 days

Daily Burn Rate: $126.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 15

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: LIGHT TACTICAL TRAILERS (LTTS) PROGRAM

Place of Performance

Location: PORTLAND, MULTNOMAH County, OREGON, 97218

State: Oregon Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $59.4 million to SILVER EAGLE MANUFACTURING CO for work described as: LIGHT TACTICAL TRAILERS (LTTS) PROGRAM Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the firm fixed-price contract type. 2. Competition was robust, indicating potential for price discovery. 3. Delivery order contract type suggests flexibility in program execution. 4. Performance context is within the broader defense logistics and equipment sector. 5. Sector positioning is in military vehicle and trailer manufacturing.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $59.4 million for Light Tactical Trailers (LTTS) was distributed across 15 delivery orders. While a direct per-unit cost comparison is not readily available without knowing the exact quantities per order, the firm fixed-price contract type suggests that the government aimed to lock in costs. Benchmarking against similar trailer procurements would be necessary for a more precise value assessment, but the scale of the award indicates a significant procurement.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was initially broad, specific sources may have been excluded for defined reasons. The presence of 15 delivery orders suggests a sustained need and potentially multiple successful bids over the contract's life. The level of competition, even with exclusions, likely contributed to price discovery and offered the government a range of options.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition, even with exclusions, suggests that taxpayers benefited from a competitive bidding process, which generally leads to more favorable pricing compared to sole-source awards.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army units requiring light tactical trailers for equipment transport and logistical support. Services delivered include the manufacturing and delivery of specialized trailers designed for tactical environments. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, where the trailers are manufactured and delivered to Army installations. Workforce implications include jobs in manufacturing, logistics, and supply chain management within the trailer manufacturing industry.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if initial bids did not accurately reflect long-term needs.
Risk of supply chain disruptions impacting timely delivery of trailers.
Ensuring trailer specifications meet evolving tactical requirements over the contract duration.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Multiple delivery orders suggest successful execution and ongoing demand.
Competition likely drove a reasonable price point for the trailers.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector, specifically military vehicle and equipment manufacturing, is characterized by specialized production and stringent quality requirements. The market for tactical trailers is a niche within this broader industry, often dominated by a few key manufacturers capable of meeting military specifications. Spending in this area is driven by operational readiness and the need to replace aging equipment. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other military trailer or light vehicle procurements.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements for this contract. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though the prime contractor, Silver Eagle Manufacturing Co., may engage small businesses in its supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring delivery of goods as specified. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific details of delivery orders might be less public. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Tactical Wheeled Vehicles
Military Logistics Equipment
Defense Supply Chain Management
Army Equipment Procurement

Risk Flags

Potential for supply chain vulnerabilities
Ensuring adherence to stringent military specifications
Managing delivery schedules across multiple orders

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $59.4 million to SILVER EAGLE MANUFACTURING CO. LIGHT TACTICAL TRAILERS (LTTS) PROGRAM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SILVER EAGLE MANUFACTURING CO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $59.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-19. End: 2009-12-31.

What is the track record of Silver Eagle Manufacturing Co. with the Department of Defense?

Silver Eagle Manufacturing Co. has a history of contracts with the Department of Defense, including this significant award for Light Tactical Trailers. Analyzing their contract portfolio reveals a specialization in trailer and vehicle manufacturing for military applications. Past performance data, including on-time delivery rates, quality metrics, and adherence to specifications, would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment of their track record. Their ability to secure multiple delivery orders under this contract suggests a generally positive performance history, though a deeper dive into specific past contracts would be needed to identify any recurring issues or exceptional successes.

How does the per-unit cost of these trailers compare to similar commercial or military procurements?

A precise per-unit cost comparison for these Light Tactical Trailers is challenging without access to the quantity of trailers ordered under each of the 15 delivery orders and their respective prices. The total award of $59.4 million spread across these orders provides an average value, but significant variations in trailer configurations or quantities per order could skew this average. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable military trailer procurements (e.g., by the Marine Corps or other Army units) or even high-end commercial flatbed or specialized trailers, adjusting for differences in materials, durability, and specific military-grade features. The firm fixed-price nature suggests an effort to control costs, but without detailed order data, a definitive value-for-money assessment on a per-unit basis remains difficult.

What are the primary risks associated with the manufacturing and delivery of these tactical trailers?

Key risks in manufacturing and delivering tactical trailers include potential supply chain disruptions for raw materials (steel, tires, axles) and specialized components, which can lead to delays and increased costs. Manufacturing quality control is critical to ensure trailers meet stringent military specifications for durability and performance in harsh environments; defects could lead to mission failures or safety hazards. Furthermore, changes in military requirements or operational needs during the contract period could necessitate design modifications, potentially impacting schedules and budgets. The firm fixed-price contract type shifts some cost risk to the contractor, but significant unforeseen issues could still lead to contract disputes or performance issues.

How effective has the Army been in procuring tactical trailers through competitive bidding processes historically?

The Army has historically utilized competitive bidding for a wide range of equipment, including tactical trailers, to ensure fair pricing and access to a broad supplier base. The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' for this specific contract indicates a structured approach to competition. The effectiveness can be gauged by the number of bids received, the price competitiveness achieved, and the overall quality and timeliness of deliveries. While this contract appears to have had a competitive award, historical analysis across various procurements would reveal trends in competition levels, the prevalence of sole-source awards, and whether these processes consistently yield optimal value for taxpayer dollars in the tactical trailer domain.

What is the typical duration and value range for similar Light Tactical Trailer procurements?

The duration of this contract was approximately 468 days (from award to end date), with a total value of $59.4 million across 15 delivery orders. Similar procurements for tactical trailers can vary significantly in duration and value depending on the quantity, specific requirements (e.g., payload capacity, environmental resilience), and the number of units being replaced or acquired. Larger, multi-year programs might extend over several years and involve hundreds of millions of dollars. Smaller, ad-hoc needs might result in shorter contracts with lower overall values. Benchmarking against other recent Army or DoD trailer awards would provide a clearer picture of the typical scale and timeframe for such procurements.

Are there any concerns regarding the contractor's ability to meet long-term sustainment or spare parts requirements for these trailers?

The provided data focuses on the initial procurement and delivery of the Light Tactical Trailers and does not offer specific insights into long-term sustainment or spare parts provisioning. Contractor capability in these areas is typically assessed during the initial solicitation phase or through separate sustainment contracts. Silver Eagle Manufacturing Co.'s history with the DoD might offer clues, but without explicit contract details regarding warranties, spare parts availability clauses, or sustainment support agreements, it's difficult to assess this specific risk. Future procurements or contract modifications would likely address sustainment needs as the trailers enter operational service.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing › Truck Trailer Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MOTOR VEHICLES, CYCLES, TRAILERS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 15

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5825 NE SKYPORT WAY, PORTLAND, OR, 97218

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $59,391,126

Exercised Options: $59,391,126

Current Obligation: $59,391,126

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W56HZV08D0106

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline