DoD's $18.45M contract with Boeing for aircraft manufacturing shows long-term engagement

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,450,102 ($18.5M)

Contractor: THE Boeing Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-09-30

End Date: 2012-07-12

Contract Duration: 2,477 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Place of Performance

Location: OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA County, OKLAHOMA, 73135

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.5 million to THE BOEING COMPANY for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract duration of 2477 days suggests a sustained need for aircraft manufacturing services. 2. The firm-fixed-price structure indicates predictable costs for the Department of Defense. 3. Sole-source award raises questions about potential cost efficiencies and market alternatives. 4. The contract's completion in 2012 means current relevance needs careful assessment. 5. Boeing's established role in defense contracting positions them as a key supplier. 6. The absence of small business set-asides may limit opportunities for smaller firms in this segment.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its completion date and sole-source nature. Without comparable sole-source awards from the same period, assessing whether $18.45 million represented fair value is difficult. The firm-fixed-price type suggests cost certainty, but the lack of competition means there was no direct market pressure to drive down prices. Further analysis would require access to historical pricing data for similar aircraft manufacturing services during the contract's performance period.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, The Boeing Company, was solicited. This approach is typically used when a unique capability or product is required, or when only one source is capable of meeting the agency's needs. The lack of competition means that taxpayers did not benefit from the price discovery that typically occurs in a competitive bidding process. This can sometimes lead to higher prices than might be achieved in an open market.

Taxpayer Impact: The sole-source award means taxpayers may have paid a premium compared to a competitively bid contract. Without competition, there's less assurance that the price reflects the best possible value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Air Force, receiving critical aircraft manufacturing services. This contract supported the production or modification of aircraft essential for national defense operations. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around Boeing's manufacturing facilities, potentially in Oklahoma. The contract supported a workforce skilled in advanced aircraft manufacturing and engineering.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential innovation from other vendors.
Contract completed in 2012; current relevance and pricing benchmarks are outdated.
Lack of small business participation may exclude valuable niche capabilities.

Positive Signals

Long contract duration (2477 days) indicates a sustained and critical need met by the contractor.
Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability for the agency.
Award to a major defense contractor like Boeing suggests capability and reliability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Aircraft Manufacturing sector, a critical component of the broader aerospace and defense industry. This sector is characterized by high barriers to entry, significant R&D investment, and long production cycles. Spending in this area is often driven by national security requirements and technological advancements. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale aircraft procurement or sustainment contracts within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. The award to a large prime contractor like Boeing suggests that the primary focus was on leveraging established capabilities. This lack of small business involvement means that opportunities for smaller, specialized firms to participate in this specific contract were likely minimal, potentially limiting their access to this segment of defense spending.

Oversight & Accountability

The provided data does not detail specific oversight mechanisms for this contract. However, as a Department of Defense contract, it would typically be subject to internal agency oversight, contract performance reviews, and potentially audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). Inspector General investigations could be initiated if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Transparency would be governed by federal procurement regulations and reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Defense Production Act Investments
Aerospace Manufacturing Contracts
Major Weapon Systems Acquisition

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
Contract completed in 2012; current data may not reflect present market conditions.
Limited information on performance metrics and specific deliverables.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.5 million to THE BOEING COMPANY. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE BOEING COMPANY.

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 $18.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-09-30. End: 2012-07-12.

What was the specific type of aircraft or aircraft component manufactured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code as 336411, which covers 'Aircraft Manufacturing.' However, the specific type of aircraft or component is not detailed. This code encompasses the manufacturing of complete aircraft, guided missiles, and space vehicles, as well as their parts. Without further information, it's impossible to determine if this contract pertained to commercial aircraft, military aircraft, helicopters, drones, or specific components like engines, airframes, or avionics. Understanding the specific product would be crucial for a more precise value and performance assessment.

How does the $18.45 million contract value compare to other similar aircraft manufacturing contracts awarded by the DoD around 2005-2012?

Comparing this $18.45 million contract value to similar aircraft manufacturing contracts awarded by the DoD between 2005 and 2012 is challenging without more specific details about the contract's scope (e.g., new production vs. modification, specific aircraft type, quantity). However, for context, major aircraft programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter or upgrades to existing fleets (e.g., B-52, C-130) involved multi-billion dollar contracts. This $18.45 million contract appears to be relatively modest in scale compared to the acquisition of entire new major weapon systems. It might represent the production of a specific component, a smaller batch of aircraft, or significant modifications/upgrades to existing platforms. A more accurate comparison would require identifying contracts with similar NAICS codes and scope during that period.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or milestones for this contract, and did Boeing meet them?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or milestones established for this contract. Contract performance is typically detailed in the contract's statement of work (SOW) and associated clauses. For an aircraft manufacturing contract, KPIs could include delivery schedules, quality standards (e.g., defect rates), adherence to technical specifications, and cost control. The 'st' and 'sn' fields are marked as 'OK', which might suggest satisfactory performance status at some point, but this is too vague for a definitive assessment. Without access to the contract's SOW and performance reports, it's impossible to determine if Boeing met its obligations or the specific metrics used to evaluate success.

Given the sole-source nature, what justification did the Air Force provide for not competing this requirement?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and awarded as a 'SOLE SOURCE'. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6 outlines the policies and procedures for competitive contracting, and exceptions for sole-source procurements are strictly defined. Common justifications for sole-source awards include: only one responsible source being available (e.g., unique technology, proprietary data), urgency of the requirement where competition is not feasible, or specific statutory authority. For this contract, the Air Force would have had to document and justify why Boeing was the only viable source. This justification is typically made publicly available through sources like the Federal Business Opportunities (now SAM.gov) synopsis of the sole-source award, often citing reasons like unique technical capabilities, existing system integration, or lack of viable alternatives.

What is the historical spending trend for aircraft manufacturing (NAICS 336411) by the Department of Defense, and how does this contract fit into that trend?

The Department of Defense is consistently one of the largest government purchasers of aircraft manufacturing services, driven by national security needs. Historical spending trends for NAICS 336411 by the DoD are substantial, often running into tens or hundreds of billions of dollars annually, encompassing everything from fighter jets and bombers to transport aircraft, helicopters, and their components. This specific $18.45 million contract, awarded between 2005 and 2012, represents a very small fraction of the DoD's overall spending in this sector during that period. It likely represents a specific, limited production run, a component supply agreement, or a modification/upgrade project rather than a major new aircraft program acquisition. Its significance lies in fulfilling a specific, albeit smaller, requirement within the broader DoD aviation ecosystem.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MODIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT › MODIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6001 S AIR DEPOT BLVD, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 73135

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline