Boeing awarded $23.4M recurring engineering services contract by Air Force, raising value-for-money questions
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $23,404,411 ($23.4M)
Contractor: THE Boeing Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2026-01-01
End Date: 2026-12-31
Contract Duration: 364 days
Daily Burn Rate: $64.3K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: B-1 RECURRING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR OPTION VII
Place of Performance
Location: OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA County, OKLAHOMA, 73135
State: Oklahoma Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $23.4 million to THE BOEING COMPANY for work described as: B-1 RECURRING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR OPTION VII Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single, large defense contractor, limiting competitive pricing pressure. 2. Recurring engineering services suggest ongoing needs, potentially indicating a long-term reliance on this specific provider. 3. Fixed Price Incentive contract type introduces performance risk for both parties. 4. The contract's duration and value warrant scrutiny for potential cost efficiencies. 5. Lack of competition raises concerns about price discovery and potential overpayment. 6. The specific nature of 'recurring engineering' needs further definition to assess its necessity and scope.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The contract value of $23.4 million for one year of recurring engineering services appears substantial. Without comparable contract data for similar engineering services from other providers or within the Department of Defense, it is difficult to benchmark the value. The fixed-price incentive structure means that while there are incentives for performance, the baseline price itself was not competitively determined, which could lead to a less favorable price for the government.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not competed. The Department of the Air Force selected The Boeing Company without soliciting bids from other potential contractors. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers do not benefit from the cost savings that competitive bidding usually generates. This can result in higher prices than might be achieved in an open market.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is The Boeing Company, which receives a significant contract for engineering services. The services delivered are 'recurring engineering,' which likely supports the ongoing maintenance, modification, or improvement of aircraft or related systems. The geographic impact is centered around the Air Force operations and potentially Boeing's engineering facilities, likely within the United States. This contract supports a segment of the aerospace engineering workforce employed by Boeing.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of competition may lead to inflated costs for taxpayers.
- Sole-source award limits opportunities for other qualified contractors, including small businesses.
- Fixed-price incentive contracts can be complex to manage and may not always yield the best value if not carefully monitored.
Positive Signals
- Award to a major defense contractor like Boeing suggests a perceived capability to meet complex engineering needs.
- The contract specifies a clear period of performance, providing a defined timeframe for the services.
- The fixed-price incentive structure aims to align contractor and government interests in achieving performance targets.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on aircraft manufacturing and related engineering support. The market for such specialized engineering services is often dominated by a few large, established prime contractors due to the high technical expertise, security clearances, and existing infrastructure required. Spending in this area is critical for maintaining the operational readiness and technological advancement of military aviation assets.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not competed and there is no indication of a small business set-aside. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, it offers no direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses through a competitive process. The absence of a set-aside or specific subcontracting goals means small businesses are unlikely to benefit from this particular award.
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 tied to the performance metrics within the Fixed Price Incentive contract. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, with details on the justification for not competing likely held within agency procurement files. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Aircraft Manufacturing
- Aerospace Engineering Services
- Department of Defense Procurement
- Air Force Sustainment Contracts
- Recurring Engineering Support
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Lack of competition
- Potential for cost overruns due to incentive structure
- Limited transparency in procurement justification
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, air-force, fixed-price-incentive, sole-source, recurring-engineering-services, aircraft-manufacturing, boeing, delivery-order, oklahoma, large-business
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $23.4 million to THE BOEING COMPANY. B-1 RECURRING ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR OPTION VII
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 $23.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2026-01-01. End: 2026-12-31.
What is the historical spending pattern for recurring engineering services for this specific aircraft program or platform?
Analyzing historical spending on recurring engineering services for the relevant aircraft program is crucial for understanding cost trends and identifying potential anomalies. Without access to specific program data, we can infer that recurring engineering costs are a significant component of maintaining complex military assets. If past spending on similar services has been consistently high or has shown significant year-over-year increases without corresponding improvements in capability or efficiency, it could indicate a need for closer cost scrutiny. Comparing this $23.4 million award to previous years' expenditures on similar services would help determine if this represents a normal cost, an increase, or a decrease, providing context for the current award's value.
What specific engineering tasks are included under 'recurring engineering services' in this contract?
The term 'recurring engineering services' is broad and can encompass a range of activities critical to the lifecycle of an aircraft or weapon system. These services often include ongoing technical support, troubleshooting, minor design modifications, analysis of system performance, development of engineering change proposals, and support for sustainment activities. For this specific contract with Boeing, it likely pertains to maintaining the operational readiness and performance of specific Air Force aircraft. Understanding the precise nature of these tasks—whether they involve software updates, hardware diagnostics, component analysis, or system integration support—is essential for evaluating the necessity of the services and benchmarking their cost against industry standards for similar technical work.
What is the track record of The Boeing Company in delivering recurring engineering services to the Department of Defense?
The Boeing Company has a long and extensive track record of providing a wide array of services, including engineering and sustainment, to the Department of Defense. As a major defense contractor, Boeing is deeply integrated into many military aviation programs. Its performance in delivering recurring engineering services would be documented through past contract performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS - Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System). While generally considered a capable provider, like any large contractor, Boeing has faced scrutiny over cost, schedule, and performance on various programs. Assessing its specific performance history related to similar engineering support contracts would provide insight into its reliability, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness in fulfilling such requirements.
How does the pricing structure (Fixed Price Incentive) compare to other contract types for similar engineering services?
The Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract type used here aims to share the risks and rewards between the government and the contractor. It establishes a target cost, target profit, and a price ceiling. If the final cost is below the target, both parties share in the savings according to a predetermined formula. If the cost exceeds the target but remains below the ceiling, the profit is reduced. If the cost exceeds the ceiling, the contractor absorbs the loss. Compared to Firm Fixed Price (FFP), FPI offers more flexibility and potential cost savings if targets are met, but requires more complex administration. Compared to Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), FPI places more cost risk on the contractor. For recurring engineering, FFP might be simpler if scope is well-defined, while CPIF might be better for highly uncertain R&D-heavy tasks. FPI strikes a balance, but its effectiveness hinges on realistic target setting and diligent oversight.
What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for recurring engineering services?
Sole-source awards for recurring engineering services carry several potential risks. Primarily, the lack of competition can lead to higher prices than might be achieved through a competitive bidding process, as the government does not benefit from market forces driving down costs. This can result in a less efficient use of taxpayer funds. Additionally, sole-source contracts can foster complacency in the contractor, potentially reducing the incentive to innovate or improve efficiency over time, as there is no immediate threat of losing the business to a competitor. It also limits opportunities for other capable firms, potentially stifling innovation within the broader industry ecosystem and reducing the government's options for future procurements.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 6001 S AIR DEPOT BLVD, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK, 73135
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $23,530,021
Exercised Options: $23,530,021
Current Obligation: $23,404,411
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: FA810719D0001
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2026-01-01
Current End Date: 2026-12-31
Potential End Date: 2026-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-01-05
More Contracts from THE Boeing Company
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (Department of Defense)
- International Space Station — $22.4B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 200112!000108!9700!ZD60 !ballistic Missile Defense ORG. !HQ000601C0001 !A!N!*!N! !20001222!20080930!848025649!848025649!009256819!n!the Boeing Company !3370 E Miraloma AVE !anaheim !ca!92806!37000!089!01!huntsville !madison !alabama !+000383571022!n!n!000000000000!ad93!rdte/Other Defense-Adv Tech DEV !S1 !services !1caa!ballistic Missile Defense SYS !541710!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !U!R!2!001!B! !Z!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $18.8B (Department of Defense)
- USN P-8A FRP II Long Lead Material — $18.1B (Department of Defense)
- 200512!010860!2100!w56hzv!tacom - Warren !w56hzv05c0724 !A!N! !Y! ! !20050923!20141231!016544780!016544780!009256819!n!the Boeing Company !J S Mcdonnell Blvd !saint Louis !mo!63166!65000!510!29!st. Louis !ST. Louis (city) !missouri !+000219245691!n!n!000000000000!az15!rdte/Other Research&development-Eng/Manuf Devel !S1 !services !301 !FCS !541330!E! !1! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !d!u!u!1!001!n!1a!z!y!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! TAS::21 2040::TAS — $12.7B (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)