DoD's $22.17M contract for aircraft structural component repair awarded to Lear Siegler Services, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,170,412 ($22.2M)

Contractor: URS Federal Services Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-03-14

End Date: 2006-03-14

Contract Duration: 365 days

Daily Burn Rate: $60.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200506!000472!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0423 !A!N! !N!0146 ! !20050314!20060314!020205527!073871048!043271568!N!LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INC !2701 LIBERTY PARKWAY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!70000!077!29!SPRINGFIELD !GREENE !MISSOURI !+000006265092!N!N!000000000000!J015!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPS !A1C!OTHER AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT !000 !* !336413!E! !5!B!M! !A! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!U!Y!2!004!B! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !C!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! !Y!2100! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: SPRINGFIELD, GREENE County, MISSOURI, 65801

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $22.2 million to URS FEDERAL SERVICES INC. for work described as: 200506!000472!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0423 !A!N! !N!0146 ! !20050314!20060314!020205527!073871048!043271568!N!LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INC !2701 LIBERTY PARKWAY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!70000!077!29!SPRINGFIELD !GREE… Key points: 1. Contract value of $22.17M for aircraft structural component repair. 2. Awarded to Lear Siegler Services, Inc. with a 365-day duration. 3. Competition was full and open, indicating a competitive bidding process. 4. Contract type is Time and Materials, which can pose cost control challenges. 5. The contract falls under the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code. 6. Geographic location of performance is Springfield, Missouri. 7. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Air Force. 8. This contract is part of broader Department of Defense spending on aircraft maintenance.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $22.17M for a one-year period for aircraft structural component repair appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized maintenance services. However, without specific benchmarks for the types of repairs performed, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Time and Materials (T&M) contract type introduces inherent risk for cost overruns if not closely managed, as it reimburses actual labor and material costs plus a fee. Comparing this to similar contracts for aircraft structural repair would provide better insight into its cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The data indicates there were 4 bids received. This level of competition is generally positive for price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government. The presence of multiple bidders implies that the market has sufficient capacity and interest to support competitive procurement for these services.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition with multiple bidders typically benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces, ensuring the government receives competitive rates for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and specifically the Department of the Air Force, ensuring the operational readiness of aircraft. The services delivered involve the maintenance and repair of aircraft structural components, crucial for flight safety and performance. The contract's performance is located in Springfield, Missouri, potentially impacting the local economy and workforce in that region. This contract supports skilled labor in aircraft maintenance and repair, contributing to the aerospace industry workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type can lead to unpredictable costs if not managed diligently.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the efficiency of repairs.
Potential for cost creep due to the nature of T&M contracts.
Limited insight into the specific types of structural components repaired and their complexity.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
Multiple bids received indicate a healthy competitive environment.
Contract supports critical aircraft maintenance, ensuring operational readiness.
Performance in a specific geographic location can stimulate local economic activity.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) of aircraft components. The market for aircraft MRO is substantial, driven by the continuous need to maintain aging fleets and ensure operational readiness. Spending in this area is critical for national security and involves specialized technical expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within the broader defense MRO services category, which encompasses a wide range of activities from component repair to full aircraft refurbishment.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. Furthermore, there is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans or performance related to small businesses. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem. However, the prime contractor, Lear Siegler Services, Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors, which would indirectly benefit them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Air Force. The Time and Materials nature of the contract necessitates close monitoring of labor hours and material costs to ensure compliance and prevent overcharging. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports and audits are typically internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services
Aerospace Component Manufacturing and Repair
Defense Logistics and Sustainment
Air Force Readiness Programs
Department of Defense Procurement

Risk Flags

Time and Materials Contract Type
Potential for Cost Overruns
Limited Performance Data Available

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $22.2 million to URS FEDERAL SERVICES INC.. 200506!000472!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0423 !A!N! !N!0146 ! !20050314!20060314!020205527!073871048!043271568!N!LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INC !2701 LIBERTY PARKWAY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!70000!077!29!SPRINGFIELD !GREENE !MISSOURI !+000006265092!N!N!000000000000!J015!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPS !A1C!OTHER AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT !000 !* !336413!E! !5!B!M! !A! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is URS FEDERAL SERVICES INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-03-14. End: 2006-03-14.

What is the track record of Lear Siegler Services, Inc. with government contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Lear Siegler Services, Inc. has a history of performing various services for the U.S. government, including maintenance, logistics, and technical support, often within the defense sector. Analyzing their past performance on similar Time and Materials contracts would be crucial. A review of contract databases and performance reports would reveal their history of meeting deadlines, staying within budget, and adhering to quality standards. Any past issues with contract performance, such as cost overruns or quality deficiencies, would be significant indicators of potential future risks. Conversely, a strong track record of successful contract completion would suggest reliability and competence in executing the current award.

How does the $22.17M contract value compare to similar aircraft structural component repair contracts awarded by the DoD?

Benchmarking this $22.17M contract against similar aircraft structural component repair contracts requires access to a broader dataset of historical awards. Factors such as the specific types of aircraft, the complexity of the structural components, the scope of repair work (e.g., minor repairs vs. major overhauls), and the duration of the contract all influence pricing. If comparable contracts for similar services over a one-year period are significantly lower or higher, it would indicate whether this award represents a particularly good or poor value. The Time and Materials nature of this contract also complicates direct price comparisons, as actual costs can vary.

What are the primary risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for aircraft structural repair?

The primary risk with a Time and Materials contract for aircraft structural repair is the potential for cost overruns. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M contracts reimburse the contractor for the actual cost of labor and materials, plus a predetermined fee or profit margin. If the contractor's labor hours are excessive, material costs are inflated, or the scope of work expands unexpectedly without proper controls, the total cost to the government can exceed initial estimates. Effective oversight, detailed tracking of hours and materials, and clear definition of work are critical to mitigating these risks. Without stringent management, T&M contracts can be less cost-effective than fixed-price alternatives.

What is the typical duration and value range for contracts related to aircraft structural component maintenance and repair within the Air Force?

Contracts for aircraft structural component maintenance and repair within the Air Force can vary significantly in duration and value, depending on the scope of work, the specific aircraft platforms, and the complexity of the repairs. One-year contracts, like this one, are common for ongoing sustainment activities. Larger, more comprehensive overhaul or upgrade programs might span multiple years and involve hundreds of millions of dollars. The $22.17M value for a one-year contract for component repair suggests a substantial but not exceptionally large program, likely focused on routine or moderately complex repairs across a fleet. Annual spending on aircraft MRO by the Air Force runs into billions of dollars.

How does the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code align with the service description 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPS'?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336413, 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing,' is primarily associated with the production of aircraft parts. However, it can also encompass establishments primarily engaged in repairing aircraft components. The service description 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPS' clearly indicates repair activities. While a more specific NAICS code for repair services might exist, 336413 is often used broadly to cover entities involved in the lifecycle of aircraft parts, including their maintenance and repair, especially when performed by manufacturers or specialized repair facilities.

What are the implications of awarding this contract to a single entity (Lear Siegler Services, Inc.) for the overall health of the aircraft repair market?

Awarding a significant contract like this to a single entity, even after full and open competition, can have implications for market dynamics. While it ensures a dedicated provider for the specific needs outlined, it might concentrate market share. If Lear Siegler Services, Inc. is a major player, this award could strengthen its position. Conversely, if the competition was robust with multiple capable bidders, it suggests a healthy market. The long-term impact depends on whether other firms continue to invest in capabilities to compete for future contracts. It's important to monitor if this leads to reduced competition over time or if other firms are actively developing their capacity.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: AECOM Global II, LLC (UEI: 043271568)

Address: 175 ADMIRAL COCHRANE DR, ANNAPOLIS, MD, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: F3460197D0423

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline