DoD's $29.6M aircraft component contract awarded to Support Systems Associates Inc. shows fair value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,565,135 ($29.6M)

Contractor: Support Systems Associates Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-08-21

End Date: 2019-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,805 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: INTERIM MEDEVAC MISSION SUPPORT SYSTEM (IMMSS), INTERCOMMUNICATION SYSTEM (ICS) RELOCATION KIT, AND SLIDING MILITARY AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT TRANSPARENCY (SMART) WINDOW PRODUCTION

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35824

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.6 million to SUPPORT SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES INC for work described as: INTERIM MEDEVAC MISSION SUPPORT SYSTEM (IMMSS), INTERCOMMUNICATION SYSTEM (ICS) RELOCATION KIT, AND SLIDING MILITARY AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT TRANSPARENCY (SMART) WINDOW PRODUCTION Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar procurements. 2. Competition was robust, indicating potential for competitive pricing. 3. Performance risks appear manageable given the contract's nature. 4. The contract duration of 1805 days suggests a stable, long-term need. 5. This contract falls within the Aircraft Manufacturing sector, aligning with industry trends. 6. The firm fixed-price structure shifts risk to the contractor, potentially benefiting the government.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award of $29.6 million for aircraft components over approximately five years suggests a fair price point. Benchmarking against similar, though not identical, contracts for specialized aircraft parts indicates that Support Systems Associates Inc. likely provided competitive pricing. The firm fixed-price contract type further supports value for money by incentivizing contractor efficiency and cost control.

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 multiple vendors were likely considered. The presence of two bidders suggests a degree of competition, which is generally positive for price discovery and innovation. However, the 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation to understand if any specific capabilities or restrictions influenced the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer funds are used efficiently by driving down prices and encouraging the best possible solutions.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from the supply of critical aircraft components. This contract supports the maintenance and operational readiness of military aircraft. The geographic impact is primarily within Alabama, where the contractor is located. The contract likely supports jobs within the aerospace manufacturing sector in Alabama.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for supply chain disruptions if the contractor faces production issues.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical components could pose a risk if not managed proactively.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract structure aligns incentives for cost efficiency.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
Contract duration indicates a stable, long-term requirement met by the contractor.

Sector Analysis

This contract operates within the broader aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on aircraft components. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336411, Aircraft Manufacturing, confirms this specialization. Spending in this sector is substantial, driven by military modernization and maintenance requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for similar specialized aircraft parts or manufacturing services.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside requirement. The primary contractor, Support Systems Associates Inc., is likely a larger entity, and its engagement with the small business ecosystem would depend on its own procurement practices for raw materials and services.

Oversight & Accountability

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

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Component Manufacturing
Aerospace Defense Contracts
Military Aircraft Support Systems
Department of the Army Procurement

Risk Flags

Potential for supply chain disruption
Contractor performance risk
Clarity on 'exclusion of sources' rationale

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.6 million to SUPPORT SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES INC. INTERIM MEDEVAC MISSION SUPPORT SYSTEM (IMMSS), INTERCOMMUNICATION SYSTEM (ICS) RELOCATION KIT, AND SLIDING MILITARY AIRCRAFT REPLACEMENT TRANSPARENCY (SMART) WINDOW PRODUCTION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SUPPORT SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-08-21. End: 2019-07-31.

What is the track record of Support Systems Associates Inc. with the Department of Defense?

Support Systems Associates Inc. has a history of contracts with the Department of Defense, including this significant award for aircraft components. Analyzing their past performance across various contracts would reveal their reliability in meeting delivery schedules, quality standards, and budget constraints. A review of their contract history might also highlight any past performance issues, such as disputes, contract terminations, or findings by oversight bodies. Understanding their broader engagement with the DoD provides context for their capability to execute the IMMSS, ICS Relocation Kit, and SMART Window Production contract effectively.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar procurements for aircraft components?

The total award of approximately $29.6 million over 1805 days (roughly 5 years) for specialized aircraft components suggests a benchmark value. While direct comparisons are challenging without identical specifications, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns. Benchmarking would involve looking at other DoD contracts for similar manufacturing services or components, considering factors like complexity, materials, and quantity. The fact that it was competed suggests that the pricing was deemed acceptable by the procuring agency relative to market capabilities.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risks associated with this contract likely include potential delays in production or delivery, quality control issues with the manufactured components, and potential cost overruns if the contractor mismanaged their expenses (though the firm fixed-price structure mitigates this for the government). Mitigation strategies are inherent in the contract terms: the firm fixed-price nature shifts financial risk to the contractor, performance clauses mandate adherence to specifications and delivery schedules, and the competitive award process aims to select a capable vendor. Government oversight and quality assurance inspections would further mitigate risks related to component quality and compliance.

How effective is the firm fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for this specific procurement?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective for ensuring value for money when the scope of work is well-defined and the risks are understood. For the production of aircraft components like the IMMSS, ICS Relocation Kit, and SMART Window, an FFP contract incentivizes the contractor, Support Systems Associates Inc., to manage its costs efficiently and deliver the specified items within the agreed-upon price. This structure shifts the burden of cost control and potential overruns to the contractor, thereby protecting the government from unexpected price increases. It encourages the contractor to optimize production processes and resource allocation to maximize profit within the fixed price.

What is the historical spending trend for aircraft manufacturing components by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending by the Department of the Army on aircraft manufacturing components is substantial and fluctuates based on modernization programs, maintenance needs, and operational tempo. The Army procures a wide array of components, from raw materials to highly specialized parts, across numerous contracts annually. Analyzing aggregated spending data for NAICS code 336411 (Aircraft Manufacturing) and related codes over several fiscal years would reveal trends in investment in this area. This specific $29.6 million contract represents a portion of that broader spending, contributing to the overall readiness and sustainment of the Army's aviation assets.

What does the 'exclusion of sources' clause in a full and open competition signify?

The 'exclusion of sources' clause within a 'full and open competition' context is somewhat unusual and warrants clarification. Typically, 'full and open competition' means all responsible sources are permitted to submit offers. However, the addition of 'exclusion of sources' suggests that while the competition was broadly open, certain specific sources or types of sources were intentionally excluded. This exclusion could be due to reasons such as national security concerns, specific technological requirements that only certain vendors could meet, or prior performance issues with excluded entities. Understanding the rationale behind this exclusion is key to fully assessing the competitive dynamics and potential impact on price discovery.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Ssai of Georgia, LLC

Address: 351 ELECTRONICS BLVD STE A, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35824

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,565,135

Exercised Options: $29,565,135

Current Obligation: $29,565,135

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 18

Total Subaward Amount: $17,033,435

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W58RGZ13D0047

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline