DoD's $194M Boeing contract for flight training services awarded under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $50,239,953 ($50.2M)

Contractor: Boeing Aerospace Operations, I

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-07-16

End Date: 2006-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,902 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200110!000175!5700!AC42 !ACC CONS/CC !F4465001C0006 !A!N!*!Y! !20010716!20010930!194293544!085188316!009256819!N!BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, I!2601 LIBERTY PKWY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!48350!109!40!MIDWEST CITY !OKLAHOMA !OKLAHOMA !+000000797350!N!N!000000000000!U009!EDUCATION SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !611512!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!J!2!002!B! !C!N!Z! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !A!C!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: LANGLEY AFB, YORK County, VIRGINIA, 23665

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $50.2 million to BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, I for work described as: 200110!000175!5700!AC42 !ACC CONS/CC !F4465001C0006 !A!N!*!Y! !20010716!20010930!194293544!085188316!009256819!N!BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, I!2601 LIBERTY PKWY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!48350!109!40!MIDWEST CITY !OKLAH… Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single, large business prime contractor, indicating a focus on established players. 2. The contract's firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope and risk allocation. 3. A relatively long duration of 1902 days implies a need for sustained service delivery. 4. The contract's value and duration point to a significant investment in aviation training infrastructure. 5. The absence of small business set-aside suggests the scope may not have been conducive to smaller enterprise participation. 6. The contract's classification as 'Services' indicates a focus on operational support rather than hardware procurement.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $194 million over 1902 days averages to roughly $102,000 per day. This daily rate for complex flight training services appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar large-scale defense training contracts. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government. However, without specific details on the training hours, aircraft types, or instructor ratios, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging.

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 offers. The fact that it resulted in a contract with a single prime contractor suggests that while competition was broad, Boeing's proposal was deemed the most advantageous. The number of bidders is not specified, but full and open competition generally promotes price discovery and encourages multiple firms to vie for the business, potentially leading to better pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve the quality of services received.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely U.S. Air Force pilots and aircrew requiring advanced flight training. Services delivered include critical flight training and potentially related support functions for aviation operations. The geographic impact is centered around Midwest City, Oklahoma, where the contractor is located, and potentially extends to training locations. Workforce implications include employment for instructors, support staff, and administrative personnel within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in due to the long-term nature and specialized services.
Reliance on a single large contractor may limit flexibility in adapting to future training needs.
The specific performance metrics and quality assurance measures are not detailed, posing a potential risk to service quality.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
Firm-fixed-price contract structure shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Long contract duration indicates a stable, long-term need for these critical training services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense services sector, specifically focusing on aviation training. The market for defense training services is substantial, driven by the continuous need to maintain pilot proficiency and introduce new aircraft and tactics. This contract represents a significant portion of spending within specialized flight training, likely competing with other providers of simulation, academic, and flight instruction for military aviation.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and the prime contractor is a large business. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contract scope may not have been structured to facilitate small business participation, or that the prime contractor is expected to handle the majority of the work internally.

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 are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, with payments contingent on meeting performance requirements. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data, but detailed performance reports and audits would likely be internal to the agency and contractor.

Related Government Programs

Air Force Training Programs
Defense Aviation Services
Aerospace Operations Support
Military Pilot Training

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of scope creep or obsolescence if not managed.
Single large prime contractor dependency could pose risks if performance falters.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting goals may limit broader economic impact.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $50.2 million to BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, I. 200110!000175!5700!AC42 !ACC CONS/CC !F4465001C0006 !A!N!*!Y! !20010716!20010930!194293544!085188316!009256819!N!BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, I!2601 LIBERTY PKWY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!48350!109!40!MIDWEST CITY !OKLAHOMA !OKLAHOMA !+000000797350!N!N!000000000000!U009!EDUCATION SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !611512!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BOEING AEROSPACE OPERATIONS, I.

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 $50.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-07-16. End: 2006-09-30.

What specific types of flight training are covered under this contract, and what is the expected outcome for trainees?

While the data identifies the contract as 'Flight Training' (NAICS 611512), it does not specify the exact types of training. This could range from basic pilot training to advanced tactical training, simulator operations, or specific aircraft systems instruction. The expected outcome for trainees would be the attainment of necessary flight qualifications, certifications, and operational readiness for their assigned roles within the Air Force. The contract's value and duration suggest a comprehensive training program rather than a single course.

How does the awarded amount of $194 million compare to historical spending on similar flight training contracts by the Department of Defense?

The $194 million contract value is substantial and indicative of a major training requirement. Benchmarking this against historical spending requires access to a broader dataset of similar contracts. However, large-scale, multi-year flight training contracts for major military branches often fall within this range, especially when they encompass extensive simulator hours, instructor support, and potentially aircraft maintenance or lease agreements. Without specific comparisons to contracts for similar aircraft types or training objectives, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high or low spending, but it signifies a significant investment.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate Boeing's performance under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate Boeing's performance. Typically, for flight training contracts, KPIs might include student pass rates, simulator availability, instructor qualifications, adherence to training schedules, safety incident rates, and student feedback. As a firm-fixed-price contract, performance is crucial for the contractor to receive full payment, implying that defined standards must be met. Further details would likely be found in the contract's statement of work or performance work statement.

What is the risk profile associated with this contract, considering it's a firm-fixed-price award to a single large contractor?

The risk profile for this contract involves several factors. For the government, the primary risk is ensuring the quality and effectiveness of the training delivered, as the firm-fixed-price nature means the contractor is incentivized to complete the work within budget, potentially at the expense of exceeding quality expectations if not properly monitored. For the contractor (Boeing), the risk lies in accurately estimating costs and managing performance over the contract's long duration to avoid financial losses. The reliance on a single large contractor also presents a risk of vendor lock-in and potential supply chain vulnerabilities if subcontractors are heavily utilized.

Are there any provisions for contract modifications or adjustments given the long duration (1902 days)?

While the data indicates a long duration of 1902 days (approximately 5.2 years), it does not specify provisions for contract modifications. Standard government contracting practice allows for modifications under certain conditions, such as changes in scope, unforeseen circumstances, or equitable adjustments. However, the firm-fixed-price nature generally aims to minimize changes. Any modifications would likely be subject to strict review and approval processes, potentially requiring supplemental funding and justification, especially if they deviate significantly from the original scope or pricing.

What is the significance of the '3000' in the PSC code (if applicable) or other codes provided, and how does it relate to the service provided?

The provided data includes 'PSC: 611512' which corresponds to 'Flight Training'. The '3000' mentioned appears in the raw data string but is not a standard PSC code. It might be an internal code or part of a different classification system not detailed here. The primary Product or Service Code (PSC) for this contract is 611512, clearly indicating that the service procured is flight training. This code helps categorize the contract within federal spending databases and allows for comparison with other similar training services.

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

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 2601 LIBERTY PKWY, MIDWEST CITY, OK, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline