DoD's C-31A Replacements contract awarded to Support Systems Associates Inc. for over $28.3M

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,313,924 ($28.3M)

Contractor: Support Systems Associates Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-05-20

End Date: 2024-02-22

Contract Duration: 2,834 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: C-31A REPLACEMENTS

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35824

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.3 million to SUPPORT SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES INC for work described as: C-31A REPLACEMENTS Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the extended duration and cost-plus contract type. 2. Competition was limited, raising questions about optimal price discovery. 3. Risk indicators include a cost-plus contract type and a long performance period. 4. Performance context shows a long-standing contract with multiple delivery orders. 5. Sector positioning is within aircraft manufacturing, a critical defense capability.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of over $28.3 million across nearly 8 years suggests a moderate per-year expenditure. However, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure can incentivize cost overruns, potentially impacting overall value. Benchmarking against similar aircraft component support contracts is difficult without more specific service details, but the duration and scope indicate a significant investment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while initial competition was sought, specific circumstances led to excluding some potential bidders. With only two bidders, the level of competition was limited, which may have resulted in a higher price than under a broader competitive scenario. This suggests that the government may not have achieved the most favorable pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition means taxpayers may have paid more than necessary. The exclusion of sources restricts the pool of potential offerors, potentially leading to less aggressive bidding and higher overall costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Army, ensuring the continued operational readiness of aircraft. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, overhaul, and logistical support for C-31A aircraft components. The geographic impact is primarily within Alabama, where the contractor is located, potentially supporting local jobs and the regional economy. Workforce implications include skilled labor in aircraft manufacturing and support, contributing to the defense industrial base.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus contract type can lead to cost overruns.
Limited competition may result in suboptimal pricing.
Long contract duration increases exposure to potential performance issues or scope creep.

Positive Signals

Contract supports critical defense aircraft, ensuring operational readiness.
Contractor has a long-standing relationship, suggesting some level of established performance.
Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating alignment with military needs.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Aircraft Manufacturing sector, a vital component of the broader aerospace and defense industry. This sector is characterized by high technological complexity, stringent quality requirements, and significant government investment. The market size for aircraft manufacturing and support services is substantial, driven by both military and commercial demand. This contract represents a specific niche within that market, focusing on the sustainment of existing aircraft platforms.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'sb' field is false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. This suggests that the prime contractor is likely a large business, and opportunities for small businesses may be limited to direct subcontracting by the prime, rather than through dedicated set-aside provisions.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the CPFF contract type, which requires detailed cost reporting and justification. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Component Support Services
Defense Logistics and Maintenance Contracts
Airframe Manufacturing and Repair
Military Aircraft Sustainment Programs

Risk Flags

Limited competition may lead to higher prices.
Cost-plus contract type carries inherent cost overrun risk.
Long contract duration increases potential for obsolescence and cost escalation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.3 million to SUPPORT SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES INC. C-31A REPLACEMENTS

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 $28.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-05-20. End: 2024-02-22.

What is the historical spending trend for C-31A replacement parts and support under this contract vehicle?

The provided data shows a total award value of $28,313,924.12 for this specific contract, which ran from May 20, 2016, to February 22, 2024, spanning approximately 2834 days. This represents an average annual spend of roughly $3.6 million. However, this figure reflects the total value of all delivery orders issued under the contract, not necessarily the consistent year-over-year spending. To understand the trend, one would need to examine the individual delivery orders issued over the contract's life to see if spending increased, decreased, or remained stable, and identify any specific periods of higher or lower expenditure. Without access to the detailed delivery order history, it's impossible to definitively describe the spending trend beyond the overall average.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) compare to industry standards for similar aircraft sustainment contracts?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are common in defense and aerospace for services where the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset or involves significant research and development. For aircraft sustainment, where unforeseen repairs or modifications might arise, CPFF can be appropriate. However, it shifts much of the cost risk to the government. Industry standards often favor Fixed Price contracts when requirements are well-defined to incentivize contractor efficiency. When CPFF is used, robust oversight and detailed cost accounting are crucial to ensure value. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF generally results in higher government expenditure due to the risk premium and potential for less stringent cost control by the contractor, but it allows for flexibility in evolving requirements.

What specific risks are associated with the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award type for this contract?

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' (FOUCAES) award type presents specific risks. Primarily, it indicates that the initial broad competition was narrowed down, potentially due to specific technical requirements, proprietary data, or other justifications for excluding certain sources. The risk here is that the exclusion may have been overly restrictive, limiting the number of capable bidders and thus reducing the competitive pressure on price and innovation. This can lead to higher costs for the government and taxpayers. Furthermore, if the exclusion was not adequately justified or if it inadvertently eliminated a highly capable and cost-effective provider, the government might not have secured the best possible value. It necessitates careful review to ensure the exclusion was truly warranted and served the government's best interest.

What is the track record of Support Systems Associates Inc. in fulfilling similar defense contracts, particularly those involving aircraft manufacturing support?

Support Systems Associates Inc. has a history of performing contracts within the defense sector, including those related to aircraft and weapon systems support. Their involvement in this C-31A replacement contract, which spans nearly eight years and involves multiple delivery orders totaling over $28 million, suggests a sustained capability and a degree of satisfaction from the Department of the Army. While specific performance metrics are not detailed here, the longevity and value of this contract indicate that the company has likely met the government's requirements to a satisfactory level, warranting continued task orders. Further due diligence would involve examining past performance reviews, any contract disputes, and the company's overall portfolio of defense contracts to fully assess their track record.

How does the contract's duration (2834 days) impact the overall cost-effectiveness and potential for obsolescence of the supported systems?

A contract duration of 2834 days (nearly 8 years) for aircraft component support presents a mixed bag regarding cost-effectiveness and obsolescence. On the positive side, a long-term contract can provide stability and predictability for both the contractor and the government, potentially leading to economies of scale and reduced administrative overhead compared to numerous short-term contracts. It allows the contractor to invest in specialized tooling and personnel. However, such a long duration also increases the risk of cost escalation due to inflation and evolving labor rates. More critically, for complex systems like aircraft, a long contract period raises the potential for component obsolescence if the supported C-31A platform itself is nearing the end of its service life or if newer, more advanced technologies emerge. This could lead to the government paying for support of increasingly outdated systems.

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: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

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: $28,313,924

Exercised Options: $28,313,924

Current Obligation: $28,313,924

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $24,318,167

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