DoD awards $26.9M for Naval Air Warfare Center technical training, with KBR Wyle Services leading R&D

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,921,258 ($26.9M)

Contractor: KBR Wyle Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2023-09-11

End Date: 2028-09-10

Contract Duration: 1,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: R&D

Official Description: TECHNICAL TRAINING PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION AIR SYSTEMS GROUP

Place of Performance

Location: LEXINGTON PARK, SAINT MARYS County, MARYLAND, 20653

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.9 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC for work described as: TECHNICAL TRAINING PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION AIR SYSTEMS GROUP Key points: 1. Contract focuses on research and development for physical, engineering, and life sciences. 2. Competition was full and open, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost control but requires careful oversight. 4. Performance period spans nearly five years, indicating a long-term need for these services. 5. The contract is a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle. 6. The primary agency is the Department of Defense, with the Department of the Air Force as the servicing agency. 7. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 541715, indicating R&D in physical sciences. 8. The contract is not set aside for small businesses.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $26.9 million over approximately five years suggests a moderate investment in specialized technical training development. Benchmarking this against similar R&D contracts in the defense sector would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure requires diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and that the fixed fee adequately compensates the contractor for their efforts without excessive profit.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and innovation. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition suggests a robust process was intended.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through market forces, potentially driving down costs and improving service quality.

Public Impact

Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division personnel will benefit from enhanced technical training products. The services delivered will support the development of advanced training materials for aircraft systems. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of Defense's operational and research facilities. Workforce implications include the need for specialized R&D personnel and technical trainers.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

CPFF contracts require robust oversight to manage costs and prevent overruns.
The long performance period necessitates ongoing monitoring of contractor performance and evolving requirements.
Reliance on a single delivery order under a larger contract could present risks if the parent contract is terminated or modified.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition suggests a commitment to leveraging market capabilities.
The specialized nature of the R&D indicates a focus on critical defense capabilities.
The contract is awarded to a known entity (KBR Wyle Services), potentially indicating a track record of performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically focusing on physical, engineering, and life sciences. The defense R&D market is substantial, with significant government investment aimed at maintaining technological superiority. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other contracts for specialized training development and simulation technologies within the Department of Defense and other federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The award to KBR Wyle Services, a large business, suggests that the primary focus was on technical capability rather than small business participation. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities exist within the scope of this delivery order.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract will likely be managed by the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division and the servicing Department of the Air Force contracting office. Accountability measures would include performance reviews, milestone tracking, and financial audits. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Naval Air Systems Command Training
Defense Research and Development
Technical Training Services
Aircraft Systems Development
Federal R&D Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires diligent cost oversight.
Long contract duration necessitates ongoing performance monitoring.
Potential for scope creep in R&D projects.
Dependence on the parent contract vehicle.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.9 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC. TECHNICAL TRAINING PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER AIRCRAFT DIVISION AIR SYSTEMS GROUP

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KBR WYLE SERVICES, 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 $26.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-09-11. End: 2028-09-10.

What is KBR Wyle Services, LLC's track record with similar Department of Defense contracts, particularly in R&D and technical training?

KBR Wyle Services, LLC has a significant history of performing contracts for the Department of Defense, often in areas related to engineering, scientific services, and technical support. Their experience typically spans various defense agencies and branches, including the Air Force and Navy. For R&D and technical training, KBR Wyle has been involved in developing simulation systems, training curricula, and providing technical expertise for complex defense platforms. A detailed review of their past performance on similar Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts would be necessary to assess their ability to manage costs effectively and deliver high-quality training products within budget and schedule. Their established presence suggests a capacity to handle large-scale, complex projects.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure compare to other common contract types for R&D services in the defense sector, and what are the implications for value?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is common for R&D efforts where the scope of work is not precisely defined at the outset, allowing for flexibility as research progresses. In CPFF, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee, representing their profit. This contrasts with Fixed Price contracts, which offer greater cost certainty for the government but can be risky for contractors on R&D projects with uncertain outcomes. Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) contracts, another alternative, include incentives for meeting cost, schedule, or performance targets. For value, CPFF can be advantageous if it encourages innovation and allows for necessary adjustments during R&D. However, it places a significant burden on the government to meticulously monitor costs to ensure they are reasonable and allocable, as the contractor has less inherent incentive to control spending compared to fixed-price arrangements. Effective oversight is crucial to realizing value under a CPFF structure.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) likely to be used to assess the success of this technical training product development contract?

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for this technical training product development contract would likely focus on the quality, timeliness, and effectiveness of the developed training products. Specific KPIs could include: 1. **Product Quality:** Measured by adherence to technical specifications, accuracy of content, and user feedback from initial testing phases. This might involve review by subject matter experts and pilot testing with target users. 2. **Schedule Adherence:** Tracking the timely completion of development milestones and final product delivery against the contract schedule. Delays could impact readiness and operational capabilities. 3. **Cost Control:** While a CPFF contract, monitoring actual costs against projected budgets and ensuring all costs are allowable and reasonable is critical. The fixed fee itself is a benchmark for the contractor's expected profit. 4. **Technical Performance:** Ensuring the developed training products meet the functional and performance requirements, such as the effectiveness of simulations, clarity of instructional materials, and integration with existing systems. 5. **User Satisfaction:** Post-deployment feedback from end-users (e.g., Naval Air Warfare Center personnel) on the usability and effectiveness of the training.

Are there any historical spending patterns or trends for technical training product development at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division that this contract aligns with?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for technical training product development at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division (NAWCAD) would provide context for this $26.9 million award. Typically, NAWCAD, as a major hub for naval aviation research, development, and acquisition, invests consistently in training solutions to support its complex aircraft systems. Spending in this area often fluctuates based on the introduction of new platforms, upgrades to existing systems, and evolving operational requirements. Contracts for training development can range from small, specialized projects to large, multi-year endeavors like this one. Without specific historical data for NAWCAD's training R&D budget, it's difficult to definitively state if this contract represents an increase, decrease, or steady investment. However, the duration and value suggest a significant, ongoing need for advanced training capabilities within naval aviation.

What are the potential risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this specific R&D project, and how might they be mitigated?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract for R&D is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs. The government bears the financial risk if costs exceed initial estimates, although the contractor's profit (the fixed fee) is capped. Another risk is scope creep, where the project expands beyond its original intent without adequate adjustments to the fee or schedule. Mitigation strategies include: 1. **Robust Oversight:** Implementing stringent monitoring of all incurred costs, requiring detailed justifications for expenditures, and conducting regular audits. 2. **Clear Statement of Work (SOW):** Ensuring the SOW is as detailed as possible upfront, defining deliverables and performance standards clearly. 3. **Change Control Process:** Establishing a formal process for evaluating and approving any changes to the SOW, assessing their impact on cost and schedule before implementation. 4. **Performance Metrics:** Defining clear performance metrics and milestones that the contractor must meet to earn their fee, even though it's fixed. 5. **Regular Communication:** Maintaining open lines of communication between the contracting officer's representative (COR) and the contractor to address issues proactively.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Nanotechnology and Biotechnology)

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Brown & Root Industrial Services Holdings, LLC

Address: 22309 EXPLORATION DR, LEXINGTON PARK, MD, 20653

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $71,319,181

Exercised Options: $71,319,181

Current Obligation: $26,921,258

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 5

Total Subaward Amount: $9,813,575

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA807518D0015

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline