DoD's $151.6M flight training contract awarded to CBD Training, Inc. shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,160,233 ($15.2M)

Contractor: CBD Training, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-08-14

End Date: 2007-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,873 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Place of Performance

Location: NELLIS AFB, CLARK County, NEVADA, 89191

State: Nevada Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.2 million to CBD TRAINING, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $151.6 million over 5 years suggests significant investment in specialized training. 2. Awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a specific justification for the procurement approach. 3. The contract's duration and firm-fixed-price nature imply predictable costs but may limit flexibility. 4. Performance context is crucial to understand if the training met its objectives and quality standards. 5. Sector positioning within flight training is specialized, potentially indicating a niche market with limited comparable contracts. 6. Risk indicators may include contractor performance history and the effectiveness of the competition strategy.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $151.6 million over approximately five years averages to over $30 million annually. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to benchmark this against similar flight training contracts. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests that the government has locked in costs, but the value for money depends entirely on the quality and effectiveness of the training delivered. Further analysis would require comparing the per-hour or per-student training costs to industry standards and assessing the contractor's historical performance on similar engagements.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This procurement method suggests that while the initial intent might have been broader competition, specific circumstances led to excluding certain sources. The exact reasons for this exclusion are not detailed but could relate to unique capabilities, prior performance, or specific program requirements. The limited nature of the competition, even if initially open, may have implications for price discovery and potentially higher costs compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition with multiple active bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: The 'exclusion of sources' aspect of the competition raises questions about whether taxpayers received the most competitive pricing possible. While the contract was not sole-source, the reduced pool of bidders could mean less downward pressure on prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of Defense personnel requiring specialized flight training. The services delivered are flight training, crucial for maintaining pilot proficiency and operational readiness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in the region where the training is conducted, potentially Nevada based on the 'SN' field. Workforce implications include the employment of instructors and support staff by the contractor, CBD TRAINING, INC.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for higher costs due to limited competition after source exclusion.
Risk of training quality not meeting evolving operational needs if contract terms are rigid.
Dependence on a single contractor for a critical training function.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Long-term award (5 years) allows for consistent training delivery and planning.
Awarded to a specific entity, potentially indicating specialized expertise.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense training sector is a critical component of military readiness, encompassing a wide range of specialized skills development. This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services category, specifically focusing on flight instruction. The market for such specialized training can be niche, with a limited number of providers possessing the necessary certifications, equipment, and experience. Benchmarking spending in this area requires comparing the contract's value against the scope and duration of similar training programs for military aviation.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SS: false, SB: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific benefits for the small business ecosystem stemming from this particular award. The focus appears to be on securing the required training services through the most effective means available, rather than prioritizing small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's performance work statement (PWS), with mechanisms for monitoring progress, quality, and adherence to terms. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance reports may be less publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Pilot Training Programs
Aviation Maintenance Training
Defense Contractor Services
Professional and Technical Training Services

Risk Flags

Competition Strategy Concerns
Potential Value for Money Gaps
Lack of Detailed Performance Data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.2 million to CBD TRAINING, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CBD TRAINING, 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 $15.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-08-14. End: 2007-09-30.

What is the specific nature of the flight training provided under this contract, and how does it align with current Air Force operational requirements?

The contract's National Item Identification Number (NIIN) or Product Service Code (PSC) is not explicitly provided in the abbreviated data, but the 'ND' field indicates 'Flight Training.' This suggests the training covers piloting skills, potentially for specific aircraft types or mission profiles relevant to the Department of the Air Force. To assess alignment with current operational requirements, one would need to examine the Performance Work Statement (PWS) associated with the contract. This document details the specific training objectives, curriculum, aircraft used, instructor qualifications, and performance standards. Without the PWS, it's presumed the training addresses a documented need for pilot proficiency or initial qualification for Air Force personnel.

How does the awarded price of $151.6 million compare to historical spending on similar flight training contracts by the Department of the Air Force?

Comparing the $151.6 million total contract value requires analyzing historical spending patterns for comparable flight training services within the Department of the Air Force. This involves identifying contracts with similar scopes of work, duration, number of trainees, and types of aircraft or simulation used. A direct comparison is challenging without more granular data on the specific training modules and their associated costs. However, if this contract represents a significant increase or decrease compared to previous procurements for similar training needs, it could indicate changes in market prices, training requirements, or the effectiveness of the procurement strategy. Further investigation would involve querying historical contract databases for relevant keywords and PSCs.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and what is the contractor's track record in meeting them?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a flight training contract typically include metrics such as student pass rates, instructor-to-student ratios, simulator uptime, adherence to training schedules, and student/instructor feedback. The abbreviated data does not provide specific KPIs or the contractor's performance history. To assess the contractor's track record, one would need to review past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) and any documented instances of deficiencies or commendations related to previous contracts held by CBD TRAINING, INC. A strong performance history would suggest a lower risk of delivery issues, while a history of poor performance could indicate potential problems.

What is the assessed risk level associated with this contract, considering factors like contractor stability, technical complexity, and market conditions?

The risk level for this contract can be assessed by considering several factors. Contractor stability is partially indicated by the award to CBD TRAINING, INC., but their financial health and operational capacity would require further due diligence. The technical complexity of flight training can vary significantly depending on the aircraft and mission profiles; advanced training typically carries higher technical risk. Market conditions for specialized flight training might be constrained, potentially increasing risk if the contractor faces unforeseen operational challenges. The 'ST' field indicating 'NV' (Nevada) might suggest a specific operational environment. Without detailed risk assessments conducted by the agency, a comprehensive evaluation is difficult, but the 'fair' rating in the 'va' section suggests moderate concerns.

How does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement strategy impact the overall value and potential for innovation?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' strategy implies that while the solicitation was initially intended to be open, certain potential bidders were excluded before the final award decision. This could be due to reasons such as unique qualifications, proprietary technology, or specific security requirements that only a limited number of firms could meet. While it aims for competition, the exclusion inherently reduces the number of viable bidders, potentially limiting price competition and the range of innovative solutions proposed. The government might have justified this approach by identifying a specific need that only certain contractors could fulfill, but it raises questions about whether a broader competition could have yielded better value or more novel approaches to flight training.

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

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 9455 KOGER BLVD., SUITE 103, SAINT PETERSBURG, FL, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline