DoD's $30.7M contract for aircraft maintenance and repair services awarded to Raytheon Aerospace Company

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,677,924 ($30.7M)

Contractor: Vertex Aerospace LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1997-10-02

End Date: 2003-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,189 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE)

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 199801!5700!0035!JA02 !AETC CONS/CC !F4168997C0509 !A!*!P00001 !19971002!19980930!091441089!007482011!001339159!N!1P066!RAYTHEON AEROSPACE COMPANY (IN!555 INDUSTRIAL DR S !MADISON !MS!39110!67436!485!48!SHEPPARD AFB !WICHITA !TEXAS !0001!+000006179984!N!N!000000000000!J069!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES !S1 !SERVICES !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !7699!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!A !N!L!2!002!B!* !C!N!Z!* !* !N!C!*!A!A!A!A!A!*!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: SHEPPARD AFB, WICHITA County, TEXAS, 76311

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $30.7 million to VERTEX AEROSPACE LLC for work described as: 199801!5700!0035!JA02 !AETC CONS/CC !F4168997C0509 !A!*!P00001 !19971002!19980930!091441089!007482011!001339159!N!1P066!RAYTHEON AEROSPACE COMPANY (IN!555 INDUSTRIAL DR S !MADISON !MS!39110!67436!485!48!SHEPPARD AFB !WICHIT… Key points: 1. Contract value of $30.7M over its period of performance. 2. Awarded for maintenance and repair of training aids and devices. 3. Contract duration of 2189 days. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Air Force. 5. Performance location specified as Sheppard AFB, Texas. 6. Contract type is 'Combination (Two or More)' indicating a complex service delivery.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $30.7 million for aircraft maintenance and repair services appears to be within a reasonable range for a multi-year, comprehensive support contract. However, without specific details on the scope of services, the number of training aids, or the complexity of the required maintenance, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar contracts for specialized training equipment support would provide a clearer picture of whether this price reflects competitive market rates or potential overpayment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The presence of two bidders suggests a degree of competition, but the exact number of proposals received and the evaluation process would determine the intensity of this competition. A robust competitive environment generally leads to better pricing and service quality for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to vie for the contract, driving down costs and improving the quality of services offered.

Public Impact

Personnel at Sheppard Air Force Base benefit from the availability of well-maintained training aids and devices. The contract ensures the operational readiness of training equipment crucial for Air Force pilot and maintenance crew training. Geographic impact is concentrated at Sheppard AFB, Texas, supporting local operations. Workforce implications include potential employment opportunities for skilled technicians and support staff at the contractor's facility and potentially on-site at Sheppard AFB.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess service quality.
Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen maintenance issues arise.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical training equipment support.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
Contract duration indicates a stable, long-term support arrangement.
Focus on training aids ensures readiness for Air Force personnel.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense services sector, specifically focusing on the maintenance and repair of specialized training equipment. The market for such services is driven by the need for operational readiness and cost-effectiveness in military training programs. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for similar support services across different military branches or for comparable training systems.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. Therefore, the primary contractor, Raytheon Aerospace Company, is likely a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans to small businesses, which could represent missed opportunities for the small business ecosystem to participate in this significant defense contract.

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 Air Force. Accountability measures would be outlined in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific operational details might be classified or sensitive.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Maintenance Services
Training and Simulation Equipment Support
Defense Logistics Support
Air Force Training Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep if additional training devices are added.
Reliance on contractor's technical expertise for specialized equipment.
Vulnerability to supply chain disruptions for replacement parts.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $30.7 million to VERTEX AEROSPACE LLC. 199801!5700!0035!JA02 !AETC CONS/CC !F4168997C0509 !A!*!P00001 !19971002!19980930!091441089!007482011!001339159!N!1P066!RAYTHEON AEROSPACE COMPANY (IN!555 INDUSTRIAL DR S !MADISON !MS!39110!67436!485!48!SHEPPARD AFB !WICHITA !TEXAS !0001!+000006179984!N!N!000000000000!J069!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES !S1 !SERVICES !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !7699!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!A !N!L!2!0

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VERTEX AEROSPACE LLC.

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 $30.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1997-10-02. End: 2003-09-30.

What was the specific nature of the 'training aids and devices' requiring maintenance and repair under this contract?

The contract specifies 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES'. This broadly refers to equipment used to train military personnel, which can range from flight simulators and virtual reality training systems to physical mock-ups of aircraft, weapons systems, or operational environments. The exact nature of these devices is not detailed in the provided data but is critical for understanding the scope and complexity of the maintenance required. Without this specificity, it's difficult to benchmark the cost against similar, precisely defined maintenance tasks.

How did Raytheon Aerospace Company's pricing compare to other potential bidders during the competition?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' with two bidders. While this suggests a competitive process, the specific pricing details of Raytheon Aerospace Company relative to the other bidder are not disclosed. To assess value for money, one would need to examine the bid proposals, including cost breakdowns, proposed labor rates, and material costs. A significant difference in pricing between the bidders could indicate varying cost structures, technical approaches, or profit margins. Further analysis would require access to the bid evaluation documentation.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this maintenance contract?

The provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for maintenance and repair services, KPIs would include metrics such as response time to maintenance requests, equipment uptime/availability, turnaround time for repairs, quality of repairs (e.g., defect rate), and adherence to safety standards. The effectiveness of the contract is contingent on the establishment and rigorous monitoring of these KPIs by the Department of the Air Force to ensure operational readiness of the training aids and devices.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar aircraft training aid maintenance contracts by the Department of the Air Force?

Historical spending data for similar aircraft training aid maintenance contracts by the Department of the Air Force is not directly available in the provided snippet. However, the contract value of $30.7 million over approximately six years (2189 days) suggests an average annual expenditure of roughly $5.1 million. To establish a pattern, one would need to analyze spending trends for similar services over multiple fiscal years, looking at contract awards to various entities, contract durations, and inflation-adjusted values. This would help determine if current spending is consistent with historical levels or represents an increase or decrease.

What is the assessed risk level associated with Raytheon Aerospace Company's performance on this contract?

The provided data does not include a specific risk assessment score or qualitative risk rating for Raytheon Aerospace Company's performance on this contract. Risk assessment in federal contracting typically considers factors such as the contractor's past performance record, financial stability, technical capabilities, and the complexity of the contract. Without access to performance reports, past performance evaluations, or specific risk mitigation plans, it is difficult to definitively assess the risk level. However, the contract's duration and value suggest a significant commitment requiring diligent oversight.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COMBINATION (TWO OR MORE) (2)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 008898843)

Address: 555 INDUSTRIAL DR S, MADISON, MS, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline