Naval contract for aircraft propellers and components awarded to United Technologies Corporation for over $137 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $37,522,579 ($37.5M)

Contractor: Hamilton Sundstrand Corporatio

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1997-10-29

End Date: 2008-01-17

Contract Duration: 3,732 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 199802!1700!0001!JA10C!NAVAL INVENTORY CONTROL POINT !N0038395G004A !A!*!0036 !19971029!19971231!137260790!001344142!001344142!N!73030!UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIO!1 HAMILTON RD 12AB52 !WINDSOR LOCKS !CT!06096!87140!003!09!WINDSOR LOCKS !HARTFORD !CONN !0001!+000022250000!N!N!000000000000!1610!AIRCRAFT PROPELLERS AND COMPONENTS !A1A!AIRFRAMES AND SPARES !2ACB!C-2 GREYHOUND !3728!4!*!*!*!B!A!*!D !U!J!1!001!N!1A!A!Y!A!* !* !N!C!*!A!A!A!A!A!*!* !*!N!A!D!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: WINDSOR LOCKS, HARTFORD County, CONNECTICUT, 06096

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $37.5 million to HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATIO for work described as: 199802!1700!0001!JA10C!NAVAL INVENTORY CONTROL POINT !N0038395G004A !A!*!0036 !19971029!19971231!137260790!001344142!001344142!N!73030!UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIO!1 HAMILTON RD 12AB52 !WINDSOR LOCKS !CT!06096!87140!003!09!WINDSOR LOCKS !HARTFO… Key points: 1. Contract value of $137.26 million for aircraft propellers and components. 2. Awarded to United Technologies Corporation, a major aerospace manufacturer. 3. Contract duration spans over 10 years, from October 1997 to January 2008. 4. Classified as 'Not Competed', raising questions about competition and pricing. 5. The contract falls under the 'Aircraft Airframes and Spares' category. 6. Geographically located in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, a hub for aerospace manufacturing.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $137.26 million for aircraft propellers and components over a decade warrants scrutiny. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The lack of competition suggests potential for inflated costs, making it challenging to assess the true value for money. Further analysis would be needed to compare this to industry standards for similar components and services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'Not Competed' basis, indicating a sole-source procurement. This means that only one vendor, United Technologies Corporation, was considered for this award. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the best possible price and terms. It also raises concerns about whether alternative solutions or suppliers were adequately explored.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government missed an opportunity to secure potentially lower prices through a more open and competitive process.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Navy, receiving critical aircraft components. Services delivered include the supply of aircraft propellers and related components. The geographic impact is centered in Windsor Locks, Connecticut, supporting local employment and the aerospace industry. This contract likely supported specialized manufacturing jobs within United Technologies Corporation and its supply chain.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer funds.
The extended duration of the contract without re-competition could indicate a lack of market alternatives or a strategic decision that needs justification.
Limited transparency into the sole-source justification makes it difficult to assess the necessity of this approach.

Positive Signals

Award to a major established contractor like United Technologies Corporation suggests a focus on reliability and proven performance.
The contract supports critical defense aviation needs, ensuring operational readiness for the Navy.
The long-term nature of the contract could provide stability for the contractor and ensure a consistent supply chain for the Navy.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on aircraft components. The market for aircraft propellers and related parts is specialized, often dominated by a few key manufacturers. United Technologies Corporation is a significant player in this industry. Benchmarking spending in this area is complex due to proprietary technologies and long product lifecycles, but this award represents a substantial investment in maintaining naval aviation capabilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it provide information on subcontracting. As a sole-source award to a large corporation, the direct impact on small businesses is likely minimal unless they are part of United Technologies Corporation's established supply chain. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any small business subcontracting opportunities were mandated or voluntarily pursued.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. The Inspector General for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction for audits and investigations. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award, but contract modifications and performance reports would be subject to internal review and potentially public disclosure depending on classification.

Related Government Programs

Naval Aviation Maintenance
Aircraft Component Procurement
Defense Logistics Agency Contracts
Aerospace Manufacturing Contracts
Sole-Source Defense Procurements

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification
Potential for non-competitive pricing
Long contract duration without re-competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $37.5 million to HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATIO. 199802!1700!0001!JA10C!NAVAL INVENTORY CONTROL POINT !N0038395G004A !A!*!0036 !19971029!19971231!137260790!001344142!001344142!N!73030!UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATIO!1 HAMILTON RD 12AB52 !WINDSOR LOCKS !CT!06096!87140!003!09!WINDSOR LOCKS !HARTFORD !CONN !0001!+000022250000!N!N!000000000000!1610!AIRCRAFT PROPELLERS AND COMPONENTS !A1A!AIRFRAMES AND SPARES !2ACB!C-2 GREYHOUND !3728!4!*!*!*!B!A!*!D !U!J!1!0

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATIO.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $37.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1997-10-29. End: 2008-01-17.

What specific types of aircraft propellers and components were procured under this contract?

The contract data specifies the Product Service Code (PSC) as '73030' for Aircraft Propellers and Components, and the Federal Supply Group (FSG) as '2ACB' for Airframes and Spares. While the exact models are not detailed in the provided snippet, the contract mentions 'C-2 GREYHOUND' under '2ACB', suggesting these components were likely for the C-2 Greyhound aircraft, a carrier-based cargo and logistics aircraft used by the U.S. Navy. The components would encompass various parts necessary for the operation and maintenance of the propellers on these aircraft.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' (CT: NOT COMPETED). Specific justifications for sole-source awards are typically documented in contract files and may include reasons such as the existence of only one responsible source, urgent and compelling needs, or specific technological requirements that only one contractor can meet. Without access to the full contract documentation, the precise justification remains unknown. However, for specialized aerospace components, it's common for a single manufacturer to hold unique patents, designs, or manufacturing capabilities.

How does the total contract value of over $137 million compare to typical spending on aircraft propellers and components?

Comparing this $137.26 million contract value requires context regarding the specific components and the duration. This contract spanned over 10 years (Oct 1997 - Jan 2008), averaging roughly $13.7 million per year. This figure needs to be assessed against the total budget allocated by the Navy for aviation maintenance and component procurement during that period. Given the specialized nature of military aircraft components and the long service life of platforms like the C-2 Greyhound, this level of investment is not necessarily unusual for a decade-long supply and support contract, especially if it covers a significant portion of the fleet's needs.

What is the track record of United Technologies Corporation (now RTX) in fulfilling defense contracts?

United Technologies Corporation, and its subsequent entities like Hamilton Sundstrand (which is listed as the contractor here and is now part of RTX), has a long and extensive history of fulfilling defense contracts, particularly in aerospace. They are a major supplier of propulsion systems, avionics, and structural components for a wide range of military aircraft. While specific performance metrics for this particular contract are not detailed, the company's overall track record is generally characterized by significant technological capability and a substantial presence in the defense industrial base. However, like any large contractor, they have faced scrutiny and reviews on various contracts over the years.

What are the potential risks associated with a long-term, sole-source contract for aircraft components?

The primary risks associated with long-term, sole-source contracts include potential cost overruns due to a lack of competitive pressure, reduced incentive for innovation from the contractor, and a lack of flexibility if requirements change or better alternatives emerge. For taxpayers, the risk is paying a premium for goods and services. For the government, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to switch suppliers or technologies in the future. Ensuring robust oversight, clear performance metrics, and fair pricing mechanisms becomes critical to mitigate these risks.

Were there any reported issues or contract modifications during the life of this award?

The provided data snippet does not contain information regarding contract modifications, disputes, or performance issues related to this specific award (N0038395G004A). Typically, such details would be found in more comprehensive contract databases or official government reports. Contract modifications are common, especially for long-term agreements, to adjust scope, pricing, or delivery schedules. Without access to that level of detail, it's impossible to assess if this contract experienced any significant changes or faced challenges during its execution.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 1 HAMILTON RD 12AB52, WINDSOR LOCKS, CT, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0038395G004A

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline