DoD Awards $139M for Operational Training Devices to CAE USA Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $139,368,636 ($139.4M)

Contractor: CAE USA Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-11-03

End Date: 2015-09-30

Contract Duration: 4,349 days

Daily Burn Rate: $32.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200405!000023!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133901D0725 !A!N! !N!0003 ! !20031103!20060831!080022015!150893097!202131454!N!CAE USA INC !4908 TAMPA WEST BLVD !TAMPA !FL!33634!71000!057!12!TAMPA !HILLSBOROUGH !FLORIDA !+000004927556!N!N!000000000000!6930!OPERATIONAL TRAINING DEVICES !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIP !000 !* !335999!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!20090124!B!C!N!A! !A!U!J!2!003!B! !A!Y!C! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!Z!A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: TAMPA, HILLSBOROUGH County, FLORIDA, 33634

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $139.4 million to CAE USA INC. for work described as: 200405!000023!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133901D0725 !A!N! !N!0003 ! !20031103!20060831!080022015!150893097!202131454!N!CAE USA INC !4908 TAMPA WEST BLVD !TAMPA !FL!33634!71000!057!12!TAMPA !HILL… Key points: 1. The contract, awarded to CAE USA Inc., focuses on operational training devices, a critical component for military readiness. 2. The award was not competed, raising questions about potential price discovery and value for taxpayer money. 3. The duration of the contract is substantial, spanning over 12 years, indicating a long-term need for these services. 4. The sector is primarily IT and Defense, with a focus on specialized training equipment.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $139,368,636.30 is for a long-term delivery order. Without specific unit costs or comparison data for similar training devices, a precise value assessment is difficult. However, the lack of competition suggests potential for overpayment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source or limited competition award. This method can limit price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition for a contract of this magnitude raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price, potentially impacting taxpayer funds negatively.

Public Impact

Military personnel will benefit from advanced training devices, enhancing operational readiness and skill development. The long-term nature of the contract suggests a sustained investment in defense training capabilities. The award to a single vendor may limit opportunities for other businesses in the training device sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Long contract duration
Potential for inflated pricing

Positive Signals

Addresses critical training needs
Potential for specialized expertise from incumbent

Sector Analysis

The defense sector relies heavily on specialized training equipment. This contract for operational training devices falls within the broader IT and Defense spending categories, where innovation and advanced technology are crucial for maintaining a competitive edge.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication in the provided data whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors or partners in this contract. The award was made to a single, likely large, prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

The lack of competition warrants closer oversight to ensure the government is receiving fair value and that the vendor is meeting all contractual obligations effectively throughout the contract's long lifespan.

Related Government Programs

All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Contract Management Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about fair pricing.
Long contract duration increases risk of cost overruns or obsolescence.
Absence of specific details on training device capabilities.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to sole-source award.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $139.4 million to CAE USA INC.. 200405!000023!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133901D0725 !A!N! !N!0003 ! !20031103!20060831!080022015!150893097!202131454!N!CAE USA INC !4908 TAMPA WEST BLVD !TAMPA !FL!33634!71000!057!12!TAMPA !HILLSBOROUGH !FLORIDA !+000004927556!N!N!000000000000!6930!OPERATIONAL TRAINING DEVICES !A7 !ELECTRONICS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIP !000 !* !335999!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!200

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 $139.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-11-03. End: 2015-09-30.

What specific operational training devices are being procured, and what is their criticality to current military operations?

The contract specifies 'OPERATIONAL TRAINING DEVICES' under PSC 6930. While the exact nature of these devices isn't detailed, they are crucial for simulating real-world scenarios, enhancing pilot proficiency, and reducing the need for expensive live training exercises. Their criticality lies in maintaining combat readiness and reducing risks associated with training in actual operational environments.

What justification was provided for not competing this contract, and how does it align with federal procurement regulations for sole-source awards?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. Federal regulations typically require justification for sole-source awards, such as the existence of only one responsible source, or a compelling urgency. Without the specific justification document, it's impossible to verify its validity, but the lack of competition is a significant flag for potential value concerns.

How does the per-unit cost of these training devices compare to industry benchmarks or previous similar procurements by the government?

A direct per-unit cost comparison is not possible with the provided data. The total award amount is $139,368,636.30 over a period of 4349 days (approximately 12 years). To assess value, a detailed breakdown of the number of units and their associated costs would be needed, alongside benchmarks for similar systems.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CAE Inc

Address: 2603 DISCOVERY DR, ORLANDO, FL, 32826

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6133901D0725

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline