DOT awards $3.3M for pilot training at Alliance Airport, FT Worth TX

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,302,706 ($3.3M)

Contractor: Allen Corporation of America, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2024-12-23

End Date: 2026-07-01

Contract Duration: 555 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FLIGHT PROGRAM PARTICIPANT PILOT TRAINING SERVICES LOCATED AT ALLIANCE AIRPORT, FT WORTH TX.

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX CITY County, VIRGINIA, 22030

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $3.3 million to ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. for work described as: FLIGHT PROGRAM PARTICIPANT PILOT TRAINING SERVICES LOCATED AT ALLIANCE AIRPORT, FT WORTH TX. Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the fixed-price contract type. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators are low with a firm fixed-price contract and defined delivery order. 4. Performance context is for essential flight training services. 5. Sector positioning is within aviation services, a critical component of transportation infrastructure.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract is a firm fixed-price delivery order, which typically offers good value by capping the government's financial exposure. Benchmarking against similar pilot training contracts would provide a more precise value assessment, but the fixed-price nature suggests a pre-determined cost structure that aligns with market expectations for such services. The total award amount of $3.3M over approximately two years seems within a reasonable range for specialized pilot training.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the initial process might have involved some exclusions, the final award was made through a competitive process open to all eligible offerors. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a robust competition that should have led to price discovery and a fair market price.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by ensuring that the government receives the best possible pricing through market forces, preventing inflated costs that might arise from less competitive scenarios.

Public Impact

Pilots undergoing training at Alliance Airport, Fort Worth, TX, will benefit from these services. The services delivered are essential flight training, crucial for maintaining pilot proficiency and certification. The geographic impact is localized to Alliance Airport in Fort Worth, Texas. Workforce implications include support for the aviation sector's skilled workforce through training.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract type limits cost uncertainty for the government.
Delivery Order structure provides flexibility within the overall contract.
Awarded by the Federal Aviation Administration, a relevant agency for aviation training.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aviation services sector, specifically focusing on flight training. The aviation training market is a specialized segment of the broader aerospace and defense industry. Spending in this area is driven by the need for pilot certification, recurrent training, and specialized skill development. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) training budgets or similar government aviation training programs.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. Therefore, it is unlikely that small businesses were specifically targeted for this award. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but are not explicitly detailed in the award information. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether prime contractors engage small businesses for specialized training components or support services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the awarding agency. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver specified training within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, allowing for general oversight. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Pilot Training Programs
Department of Transportation Aviation Services
Air Traffic Controller Training

Risk Flags

Contract Performance Risk
Instructor Availability Risk
Regulatory Compliance Risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $3.3 million to ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC.. FLIGHT PROGRAM PARTICIPANT PILOT TRAINING SERVICES LOCATED AT ALLIANCE AIRPORT, FT WORTH TX.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALLEN CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-12-23. End: 2026-07-01.

What is the track record of Allen Corporation of America, Inc. with the Federal Aviation Administration or similar agencies?

A thorough review of Allen Corporation of America, Inc.'s past performance with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other government agencies is crucial for assessing their reliability in delivering pilot training services. This would involve examining contract histories for similar training programs, looking for any past performance issues, contract disputes, or successful completion records. Data on their on-time delivery, quality of training, and adherence to budget on previous contracts would provide significant insight. Understanding their experience with firm fixed-price contracts and delivery orders specifically would also be beneficial. Without this specific historical data, the assessment relies on the general understanding of the competitive award process and the contract type.

How does the $3.3 million award compare to typical costs for similar pilot training services?

Benchmarking the $3.3 million award against similar pilot training contracts is essential for evaluating value for money. This comparison should consider the duration of the training (555 days), the type of aircraft or simulators used, the specific pilot ratings or certifications being sought, and the number of pilots to be trained. For instance, training for commercial airline pilots or specialized military aviators often incurs higher costs than basic private pilot training. If this contract covers recurrent training for a large cohort of existing pilots, the cost per pilot might be lower than initial certification training. A detailed analysis would require access to a database of comparable federal contracts or industry pricing data for aviation training services.

What are the primary risks associated with this specific flight training contract?

The primary risks associated with this flight training contract are relatively low due to its firm fixed-price nature and the delivery order structure. However, potential risks include the contractor's ability to maintain the quality and standards of training throughout the contract period, especially if faced with unexpected cost increases not covered by the fixed price. Another risk could be the availability of qualified instructors and appropriate training facilities at Alliance Airport. Furthermore, changes in aviation regulations or pilot requirements could necessitate modifications to the training curriculum, potentially leading to scope creep or disputes if not managed carefully. The government also faces the risk of the contractor failing to meet performance standards, although the fixed-price structure incentivizes timely and complete delivery.

How effective is the Federal Aviation Administration in managing and overseeing flight training contracts?

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally has established processes for managing and overseeing flight training contracts, given its core mission related to aviation safety and pilot proficiency. Their effectiveness is typically measured by their ability to ensure that training meets regulatory standards, that contractors are held accountable for performance, and that taxpayer funds are used efficiently. The FAA employs contract officers and technical representatives to monitor contract execution, review deliverables, and ensure compliance. However, the effectiveness can vary based on the specific program, the resources allocated to oversight, and the complexity of the training requirements. Publicly available data on contract performance and any Inspector General reports related to FAA training programs could offer insights into their oversight effectiveness.

What are the historical spending patterns for flight training services by the Department of Transportation?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for flight training services by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and its agencies, like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), provides context for the current $3.3 million award. This involves examining annual expenditures on similar training contracts over the past several fiscal years. Key metrics to consider include the total amount spent, the number of contracts awarded, the average contract value, and the primary contractors. Understanding these trends can reveal whether spending on flight training is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, and whether the DOT relies on a few key providers or a diverse range of contractors. Such analysis helps in identifying potential budget fluctuations, shifts in training needs, or changes in procurement strategies.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Technical and Trade Schools › Flight Training

Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10400 EATON PL STE 330, FAIRFAX, VA, 22030

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,302,706

Exercised Options: $3,302,706

Current Obligation: $3,302,706

Actual Outlays: $2,329,648

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: SERVICES PURSUANT TO FAR 12.102(G)

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 6973GH21D00004

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline