DynCorp International awarded $49.6M for aircraft structural component repair, highlighting potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $49,644,306 ($49.6M)

Contractor: Dyncorp Technical Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-11-07

End Date: 2011-07-08

Contract Duration: 2,069 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200603!000015!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0422 !A!N! !N!0170 ! !20051107!20060930!608461898!003242013!009581091!N!DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC !13500 HERITAGE PARKWAY !FORT WORTH !TX!76177!60650!037!24!PATUXENT RIVER NAS !ST. MARY S !MARYLAND !+000006776539!N!N!000000000000!J015!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPS !A1A!AIRFRAMES AND SPARES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !336413!E! !5!B!M! !A! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!U!Y!2!004!B! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !C!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! !2100! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: FORT WORTH, TARRANT County, TEXAS, 76177

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $49.6 million to DYNCORP TECHNICAL SERVICES INC for work described as: 200603!000015!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0422 !A!N! !N!0170 ! !20051107!20060930!608461898!003242013!009581091!N!DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC !13500 HERITAGE PARKWAY !FORT WORTH !TX!76177!60650!037!24!PATUXENT RIVER NAS !ST. … Key points: 1. Contract value of $49.6M for aircraft structural component repair. 2. Awarded to DynCorp Technical Services Inc. for a duration of 2069 days. 3. Competition level was 'Full and Open', suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 4. Contract type is 'Time and Materials', which can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 336413, related to aircraft parts manufacturing. 6. The Product Service Code (PSC) is not discernible, limiting detailed service analysis. 7. The contract was awarded by the Department of Defense, specifically the Defense Contract Management Agency. 8. The contract was awarded in Texas, with the contractor located in Fort Worth.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $49.6 million over approximately 5.7 years for aircraft structural component repair warrants careful scrutiny. While the 'Time and Materials' pricing structure can offer flexibility, it also presents a risk for cost escalation if not rigorously managed. Benchmarking this against similar repair contracts for structural components is challenging without more specific details on the scope of work and the types of components repaired. The number of bids received (4) suggests some level of competition, but the ultimate value-for-money depends heavily on the efficiency and effectiveness of the services provided by DynCorp.

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. Four bids were received, suggesting a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While 'Full and Open' is generally preferred for maximizing competition and achieving fair pricing, the actual impact on price discovery depends on the number and capability of the bidders and the specific requirements of the solicitation.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process like 'Full and Open' generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging lower prices and better service offerings from contractors vying for the award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force units and personnel who rely on well-maintained aircraft for operational readiness. Services delivered include the maintenance and repair of aircraft structural components, ensuring airworthiness and safety. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, with the contract managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency in Texas. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for skilled technicians and support staff within DynCorp International and its potential subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to 'Time and Materials' pricing structure.
Limited visibility into specific repair services and components due to an indiscernible PSC.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical aircraft structural component repairs.
The duration of the contract (over 5 years) could lead to complacency if not actively managed.

Positive Signals

Awarded through 'Full and Open Competition', indicating a potentially robust bidding process.
DynCorp International is an established contractor with experience in defense services.
The contract supports critical Department of Defense aviation readiness.
The contract is managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency, suggesting established oversight.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on the maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) of aircraft structural 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 broader defense aviation sustainment contracts.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication of a small business set-aside for this contract, and the award to DynCorp International LLC, a large business, suggests it was not primarily targeted at small businesses. However, large prime contractors like DynCorp often engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill specific requirements or meet socio-economic goals. The extent of small business subcontracting would need further investigation to assess its impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract is likely managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures would include performance reviews, audits, and adherence to the 'Time and Materials' reporting requirements. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics and detailed spending breakdowns may be less publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services
Defense Aviation Sustainment
Aerospace Component Manufacturing and Repair
Department of Defense Logistics and Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials contract type.
Limited detail on specific services provided due to indiscernible PSC.
Moderate competition level (4 bidders) may limit optimal price discovery.
Contract duration of over 5 years requires sustained oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $49.6 million to DYNCORP TECHNICAL SERVICES INC. 200603!000015!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0422 !A!N! !N!0170 ! !20051107!20060930!608461898!003242013!009581091!N!DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC !13500 HERITAGE PARKWAY !FORT WORTH !TX!76177!60650!037!24!PATUXENT RIVER NAS !ST. MARY S !MARYLAND !+000006776539!N!N!000000000000!J015!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPS !A1A!AIRFRAMES AND SPARES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !336413!E! !5!B!M! !A! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DYNCORP TECHNICAL SERVICES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $49.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-11-07. End: 2011-07-08.

What is DynCorp International's track record with similar 'Time and Materials' contracts for aircraft structural repair?

DynCorp International has a long history of performing various services for the Department of Defense, including aviation maintenance and logistics. Their experience with 'Time and Materials' contracts is extensive, as this pricing model is common in service-based agreements where the exact scope or duration can be variable. However, the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of their 'Time and Materials' work can vary significantly depending on the specific contract, the level of oversight, and the nature of the services. Analyzing past performance on similar contracts, including any documented cost overruns or performance issues, would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment of their reliability and value proposition in this instance.

How does the awarded price of $49.6 million compare to industry benchmarks for similar aircraft structural component repair services?

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without detailed specifics on the types of aircraft, the complexity of the structural components, and the exact nature of the repair services required. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336413 covers 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing,' which is broad. However, the Product Service Code (PSC) being 'NOT DISCERNABLE' further complicates direct comparison. Generally, 'Time and Materials' contracts can be more expensive than fixed-price contracts if not managed tightly, as they pass on labor and material costs plus a fee. A thorough benchmark would require comparing the labor rates, overhead, and material markups against industry standards for similar repair tasks performed under comparable contract types and competition levels.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

The primary risk indicator is the 'Time and Materials' (T&M) pricing structure, which inherently carries a risk of cost escalation if not meticulously managed and overseen. Without a fixed ceiling or clear deliverables tied to specific costs, the total expenditure can exceed initial estimates. Another risk is the potential for scope creep or inefficient execution, leading to reduced value for money. Mitigation strategies would typically involve robust government oversight, detailed tracking of labor hours and material costs, regular performance reviews, and potentially establishing cost ceilings or performance incentives within the contract. The 'Full and Open Competition' with four bidders may have helped mitigate initial pricing risks by fostering a competitive environment.

What is the historical spending pattern for aircraft structural component repair by the Department of Defense, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

The Department of Defense consistently allocates significant funds towards aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) to ensure fleet readiness. Historical spending in this category is substantial, often running into billions of dollars annually across all branches. Contracts for structural component repair are a critical subset of this overall MRO spending. This $49.6 million contract, awarded over approximately 5.7 years, represents a moderate-sized investment within the broader DoD aviation sustainment budget. Its placement within the trend depends on whether it replaces previous contracts, addresses new requirements, or reflects an increase/decrease in demand for specific repair services compared to prior periods.

What are the implications of the 'Full and Open Competition' with only four bidders for price discovery and overall value?

While 'Full and Open Competition' is the preferred method for maximizing market participation, receiving only four bids suggests that the market for this specific type of aircraft structural component repair may be somewhat concentrated, or the solicitation requirements were highly specialized. A larger number of bidders typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices due to increased competitive pressure. With four bidders, there is still competition, but it might not be as intense as if there were ten or more. The value achieved will depend on the quality of the bids submitted and the government's negotiation and oversight capabilities. It implies that the government likely received competitive offers, but the potential for even greater savings through broader competition cannot be ruled out.

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

Address: 6500 WEST FWY STE 600, FORT WORTH, TX, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: F3460197D0422

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline