Naval Air Warfare Center contract for training aids awarded to D.P. Associates Inc. for over $175 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $36,890,050 ($36.9M)

Contractor: D.P. Associates Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-05-10

End Date: 2008-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,331 days

Daily Burn Rate: $27.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 28

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200508!231763!1700!N61339!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6133903D5017 !A!N! !N!0011 ! !20050510!20080509!175339498!175339498!175339498!N!D P ASSOCIATES INC !3401 COLUMBIA PIKE FL 4 !ARLINGTON !VA!22204!34200!133!37!JACKSONVILLE (MCAS) !ONSLOW !N CAROLINA!+000003212627!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !212 !V22 !333319!E! !5!B!M! !E! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!U!J!2!028!B! !A!N!D! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !Z! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! !Y!1710!N61339!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22204

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $36.9 million to D.P. ASSOCIATES INC. for work described as: 200508!231763!1700!N61339!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6133903D5017 !A!N! !N!0011 ! !20050510!20080509!175339498!175339498!175339498!N!D P ASSOCIATES INC !3401 COLUMBIA PIKE FL 4 !ARLINGTON !VA!22204!34200!133!37!JACKSONVILLE (MCAS) !ONSL… Key points: 1. Contract value of $175.3M over its period of performance. 2. Awarded on a full and open competition basis. 3. Contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, indicating potential for cost overruns. 4. The contract duration was 1331 days. 5. The primary service category is Training Aids. 6. The contractor, D.P. Associates Inc., has a track record with this specific contract. 7. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy. 8. The place of performance was Jacksonville (MCAS), Onslow County, North Carolina.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $175.3 million for training aids over approximately 3.6 years appears substantial. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for training aids is difficult without more specific details on the nature of the training aids. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type suggests that the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee, which can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed carefully. The contract was awarded on a full and open competition basis, which generally supports competitive pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data indicates there were 28 bids received, suggesting a healthy level of competition for this requirement. A higher number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition with 28 bids is beneficial for taxpayers as it likely drove down costs through competitive pressure, ensuring the government received value for its investment in training aids.

Public Impact

Naval personnel requiring training aids will benefit from the services delivered. The contract supports the operational readiness of naval aviation units. The primary geographic impact is in Jacksonville (MCAS), North Carolina, where the training aids are likely utilized or delivered. The contract supports the workforce of D.P. Associates Inc. and potentially its subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can lead to cost uncertainty if not closely monitored.
  • The contract duration of over 3 years requires ongoing performance monitoring.
  • The specific nature of 'Training Aids' is broad and could encompass a wide range of items, making direct cost comparisons challenging.

Positive Signals

  • Awarded under full and open competition with 28 bids, indicating strong market interest and competitive pricing.
  • The contract was awarded to D.P. Associates Inc., suggesting established capability in this area.
  • The contract is for training aids, directly supporting military readiness.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the broader category of defense-related services and equipment, specifically focusing on training aids. The defense sector is a significant area of federal spending, with substantial investment in simulation, training, and educational technologies to maintain military readiness. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific type and complexity of the training aids procured, but the overall value suggests a significant procurement.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract included small business set-asides or specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses. As it was awarded under full and open competition, the primary focus was on the best overall value to the government, which may or may not have prioritized small business participation directly in the prime contract award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards, reporting requirements, and payment schedules tied to deliverables. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though specific details of performance and cost management are often internal.

Related Government Programs

  • Naval Training Systems
  • Defense Training and Simulation
  • Military Readiness Programs
  • Naval Aviation Support Services

Risk Flags

  • Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost growth.
  • Long contract duration requires sustained oversight.
  • Lack of specific detail on 'Training Aids' makes direct value comparison difficult.

Tags

defense, department-of-the-navy, naval-air-warfare-center, training-aids, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, north-carolina, arlington-virginia, large-contract, service-contract, equipment-contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $36.9 million to D.P. ASSOCIATES INC.. 200508!231763!1700!N61339!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6133903D5017 !A!N! !N!0011 ! !20050510!20080509!175339498!175339498!175339498!N!D P ASSOCIATES INC !3401 COLUMBIA PIKE FL 4 !ARLINGTON !VA!22204!34200!133!37!JACKSONVILLE (MCAS) !ONSLOW !N CAROLINA!+000003212627!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !212 !V22 !333319!E! !5!B!M! !E! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is D.P. ASSOCIATES 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 $36.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-05-10. End: 2008-12-31.

What specific types of training aids were procured under this contract?

The contract data identifies the Product Service Code (PSC) as 6910, which corresponds to 'Training Aids'. However, the specific nature of these training aids is not detailed in the provided summary. This could range from physical mock-ups and simulators to software-based training modules or instructional materials. Understanding the exact nature of the training aids is crucial for a more precise assessment of value for money and for comparison with other similar procurements within the defense sector.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for similar training aid procurements?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or when there is a high degree of uncertainty in the costs involved. For training aids, especially those involving new technology development or complex simulations, CPFF can be appropriate. However, it carries a higher risk of cost growth for the government compared to fixed-price contracts. Fixed-price contracts (like FFP or FP-EPA) are generally preferred when requirements are well-defined, as they provide greater cost certainty. The choice of CPFF here suggests the Navy anticipated significant cost variables or developmental aspects in the training aids.

What was the historical spending pattern for training aids by the Naval Air Warfare Center prior to this contract?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award from 2005-2008. To assess historical spending patterns, a broader dataset encompassing multiple years and various contracts for training aids by the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) would be necessary. Analyzing past spending would reveal trends in contract values, types of training aids procured, and the contractors most frequently awarded these types of contracts. This context is essential to determine if the $175.3 million value of this specific contract represents an increase, decrease, or consistent level of investment in training aids.

What is the track record of D.P. Associates Inc. with government contracts, particularly in the defense sector?

D.P. Associates Inc. was awarded this specific contract, indicating they were a capable and competitive bidder for naval training aids. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine their contract history across various agencies and contract types. This would include looking at past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and the overall volume and value of contracts they have held. A history of successful performance on similar contracts would increase confidence in their ability to deliver on this requirement, while a history of issues might raise concerns.

How did the 28 bids received influence the final contract price and terms?

The presence of 28 bids strongly suggests a competitive environment, which typically exerts downward pressure on pricing. In a full and open competition, the government evaluates proposals based on factors including price and technical merit. A larger number of bids increases the likelihood that at least one bidder will offer a highly competitive price. While the contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, the fixed fee component and the overall cost reimbursement are likely to have been influenced by the competitive landscape, potentially resulting in a lower fee or more stringent cost controls than might be seen with fewer bidders.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'Training Aids' category, and how were they mitigated?

Risks in the 'Training Aids' category can include technological obsolescence, rapidly changing training requirements, cost overruns due to complexity, and contractor performance issues. Given the CPFF structure, cost overruns are a primary risk. Mitigation strategies would typically involve robust government oversight, clear performance metrics, regular progress reviews, and potentially incentive clauses within the contract. The specific mitigation efforts employed for this contract would depend on the detailed contract terms and the NAWC's program management practices.

Industry Classification

NAICS: ManufacturingCommercial and Service Industry Machinery ManufacturingOther Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 28

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.

Address: 1320 BRADDOCK PL STE 700, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22314

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: N6133903D5017

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2005-05-10

Current End Date: 2008-12-31

Potential End Date: 2008-12-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2023-08-09

More Contracts from D.P. Associates Inc.

View all D.P. Associates Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending