Naval Air Warfare Center awards $11.1M contract for electronic countermeasures systems to Tybrin Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,096,932 ($11.1M)

Contractor: Jacobs Technology Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-06-24

End Date: 2009-02-28

Contract Duration: 1,345 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200509!282718!1700!N68936!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6893604D0019 !A!N! !N!0004 ! !20050624!20080723!037305646!037305646!037305646!N!TYBRIN CORPORATION !1030 TITAN COURT !FORT WALTON BE !FL!32547!57936!111!06!POINT MUGU PMTC !VENTURA !CALIFORNIA!+000001580000!N!N!000000000000!5865!ELCT CNTRMSRS, CNTR-CNTR-MSRS & QCK RCTN CPBLTY EQ!C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !* !541330!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!20070512!B! ! !A! !A!N!R!2!004!B! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!C!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! !Y!1719!N60530!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: POINT MUGU NAWC, VENTURA County, CALIFORNIA, 93042, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.1 million to JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC for work described as: 200509!282718!1700!N68936!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6893604D0019 !A!N! !N!0004 ! !20050624!20080723!037305646!037305646!037305646!N!TYBRIN CORPORATION !1030 TITAN COURT !FORT WALTON BE !FL!32547!57936!111!06!POINT MUGU PMTC !VENT… Key points: 1. The contract, valued at $11.1 million, is for electronic countermeasures systems and related capabilities. 2. Awarded to Tybrin Corporation, this contract represents a significant investment in naval defense technology. 3. The primary risk lies in the potential for cost overruns given the 'Cost Plus Award Fee' structure. 4. The sector is Engineering Services, specifically supporting advanced defense systems.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for flexibility but can lead to higher costs if not managed tightly. Benchmarking against similar CPAF contracts for complex engineering services is difficult without more detailed cost breakdowns.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. However, the 'Cost Plus Award Fee' pricing type may not always yield the most cost-effective outcome for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive award process aims for fair pricing, but the CPAF structure necessitates close oversight to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently.

Public Impact

Enhances naval aviation's electronic warfare capabilities, crucial for modern combat scenarios. Supports advanced technological development within the defense sector, potentially leading to future innovations. The contract duration of over 3 years suggests a long-term need for these specialized systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee structure can incentivize higher spending.
Potential for scope creep in complex engineering services.
Long contract duration requires sustained oversight.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition.
Supports critical defense capabilities.
Contractor has a history of performance (implied by award).

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, which is vital for the development and maintenance of complex defense systems. Spending in this area is often driven by technological advancements and national security requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors. Further investigation would be needed to assess small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'Cost Plus Award Fee' structure requires robust government oversight to ensure performance objectives are met and costs are controlled. Regular performance reviews and audits are essential for accountability.

Related Government Programs

Engineering Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Navy Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure.
Complexity of engineering services may lead to scope creep.
Long contract duration requires sustained monitoring.
Dependence on specific technological advancements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.1 million to JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC. 200509!282718!1700!N68936!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6893604D0019 !A!N! !N!0004 ! !20050624!20080723!037305646!037305646!037305646!N!TYBRIN CORPORATION !1030 TITAN COURT !FORT WALTON BE !FL!32547!57936!111!06!POINT MUGU PMTC !VENTURA !CALIFORNIA!+000001580000!N!N!000000000000!5865!ELCT CNTRMSRS, CNTR-CNTR-MSRS & QCK RCTN CPBLTY EQ!C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !* !541330!E! !5!B!M! !A!D!200

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JACOBS TECHNOLOGY INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-06-24. End: 2009-02-28.

What specific performance metrics are tied to the 'award fee' component of this contract, and how are they measured?

The award fee is typically tied to specific performance objectives outlined in the contract. These could include meeting technical specifications, delivery schedules, and quality standards. The government evaluates the contractor's performance against these metrics and determines the fee amount. Detailed metrics and measurement methods are usually found in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or equivalent documentation.

How does the Naval Air Warfare Center ensure that the 'Cost Plus Award Fee' structure does not lead to excessive contractor profits or inefficient spending?

Oversight is critical. The government must actively monitor contractor performance against defined metrics, conduct regular audits, and ensure that the award fee is justified by exceptional performance. Establishing clear, measurable objectives and maintaining strong communication channels with the contractor are key to controlling costs and ensuring value for taxpayer money.

What is the long-term strategic value of investing in these specific electronic countermeasures systems for the Navy?

Investing in advanced electronic countermeasures (ECM) systems is crucial for maintaining air superiority and survivability in contested airspace. These systems help neutralize enemy radar, missile guidance, and communication systems, protecting naval aircraft and personnel. The strategic value lies in enhancing operational effectiveness, reducing risk to aircrews, and deterring potential adversaries.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Jacobs Engineering Group Inc (UEI: 074103508)

Address: 1030 TITAN COURT, FORT WALTON BEACH, FL, 32547

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

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6893604D0019

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline