Air Force's $31.7M Weapons System Trainer Contract Awarded to CYMSTAR LLC for Aircraft Parts

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,672,690 ($31.7M)

Contractor: Cymstar LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2010-01-21

End Date: 2014-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,652 days

Daily Burn Rate: $19.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: AMC BOOM OPERATOR WEAPONS SYSTEM TRAINER (BOWST)

Place of Performance

Location: BROKEN ARROW, TULSA County, OKLAHOMA, 74012

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.7 million to CYMSTAR LLC for work described as: AMC BOOM OPERATOR WEAPONS SYSTEM TRAINER (BOWST) Key points: 1. Contract value of $31.7 million over approximately 4.5 years indicates a significant investment in specialized training equipment. 2. The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' suggesting a competitive process with specific source exclusions. 3. CYMSTAR LLC, the contractor, has a track record that warrants examination for performance and reliability in similar defense contracts. 4. The 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code places this contract within a niche but critical sector of defense logistics. 5. The contract's duration of 1652 days (approx. 4.5 years) suggests a long-term need for the training system. 6. The award type is a 'Definitive Contract,' typically used for when the extent and timing of the work are known. 7. The contract's fixed price nature aims to control costs for the government, but requires careful monitoring of scope creep.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $31.7 million for a weapons system trainer appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar specialized training systems is necessary to determine if this represents good value for money. Without specific details on the trainer's capabilities and the number of units procured, a precise value assessment is difficult. However, the fixed-price nature of the contract suggests an attempt to cap costs, which is a positive indicator for cost control.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources were excluded from consideration. The exact reasons for these exclusions are not provided but could stem from specific technical requirements, prior performance issues, or other strategic considerations. The number of bidders is not specified, but the exclusion of sources suggests a potentially smaller pool than a truly 'full and open' competition.

Taxpayer Impact: While the competition was not fully open, the exclusion of specific sources may have been justified by technical needs. Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the best value, even with limitations, provided the exclusions were well-reasoned and documented.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force personnel who will utilize the BOWST for training on the AMC BOOM OPERATOR WEAPONS SYSTEM. The contract delivers a specialized training system, crucial for maintaining pilot proficiency and operational readiness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated at Air Force bases where the training will be conducted. Workforce implications may include the need for skilled technicians to operate, maintain, and potentially develop the training system.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'Exclusion of Sources' in the competition type warrants further investigation to ensure it did not unduly limit competition and potentially increase costs.
Lack of detailed performance metrics or outcome data makes it difficult to assess the true effectiveness and value of the training system.
The 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code is broad; understanding the specific components and complexity of the trainer is key to assessing risk.
The contractor's track record with similar complex training systems needs to be thoroughly reviewed to identify potential performance risks.

Positive Signals

The contract is a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) award, which shifts cost risk to the contractor and provides budget certainty for the government.
The use of a Definitive Contract suggests a clear understanding of the requirements and scope of work.
The contract was competed, indicating an effort to leverage market forces for a better outcome, even with source exclusions.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on training and simulation equipment. The market for defense training systems is highly specialized, often dominated by a few key players capable of meeting stringent military requirements. Spending in this area is driven by the need for advanced simulation to reduce costs and risks associated with live training, and to prepare personnel for complex modern warfare scenarios. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for flight simulators, weapons system trainers, and virtual reality training solutions within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'sb' field is false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. This suggests that the prime contractor, CYMSTAR LLC, is likely a large business, and the contract was not specifically structured to encourage small business involvement. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to determine if small businesses were indirectly engaged.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Department of the Air Force's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the Firm Fixed Price contract type, which incentivizes the contractor to meet specifications within budget. Transparency would be enhanced by public availability of performance reports and contract modifications. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Aircrew Training Systems
Flight Simulators
Weapons Systems Simulators
Defense Training Equipment
Aircraft Maintenance Training

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Risk of cost overruns if scope is not tightly managed despite fixed price.
Dependence on specific 'parts' manufacturing could introduce supply chain risks.
Need for detailed performance assessment to ensure value for money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.7 million to CYMSTAR LLC. AMC BOOM OPERATOR WEAPONS SYSTEM TRAINER (BOWST)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CYMSTAR 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 $31.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-01-21. End: 2014-07-31.

What is CYMSTAR LLC's past performance record with the Department of Defense, particularly on similar complex training systems?

Assessing CYMSTAR LLC's past performance is crucial for understanding their capability to deliver the AMC BOOM OPERATOR WEAPONS SYSTEM TRAINER (BOWST). A review of their contract history with the DoD, specifically focusing on projects involving simulation, training systems, or complex equipment manufacturing, would reveal their track record. Key indicators include on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of deliverables, and customer satisfaction ratings. Any instances of contract disputes, performance failures, or significant modifications due to contractor shortcomings would raise red flags. Conversely, a history of successful, on-schedule, and within-budget project completion would indicate a lower performance risk for this current contract. Without access to specific performance reviews or CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) data, a definitive judgment cannot be made, but the general nature of defense contracting suggests a need for rigorous vetting of contractor history.

How does the $31.7 million contract value compare to similar weapons system trainer procurements by the Air Force or other branches?

Benchmarking the $31.7 million contract value against similar procurements is essential for evaluating value for money. This comparison should ideally focus on contracts for training systems of comparable complexity, intended for similar aircraft or weapon platforms, and awarded within a similar timeframe. Factors such as the number of training units procured, the sophistication of the simulation technology (e.g., fidelity, VR integration), and the scope of included services (e.g., maintenance, software updates) must be considered. If comparable contracts for similar systems were awarded at a lower total cost or at a lower per-unit cost, it could suggest that this contract may be overpriced or that the scope is significantly more extensive. Conversely, if this contract represents a more advanced or comprehensive training solution than historical benchmarks, the higher cost might be justified. A detailed analysis requires access to a broader dataset of defense training system contracts.

What are the specific risks associated with the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code in the context of a weapons system trainer?

The 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code (336413) is broad and encompasses a wide range of components. In the context of a weapons system trainer, the primary risks stem from the potential complexity and integration challenges of these parts. If the trainer relies on highly specialized or custom-manufactured components, there's a risk of supply chain disruptions, long lead times, and potential obsolescence. The manufacturing process itself could introduce quality control risks, impacting the trainer's reliability and fidelity. Furthermore, ensuring that these 'parts' integrate seamlessly into a functional training system requires significant engineering expertise. The risk is amplified if the contractor lacks deep experience in integrating diverse aircraft components into a cohesive simulation environment. Understanding the specific nature of the parts and their role in the trainer is key to mitigating these manufacturing and integration risks.

What does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation imply about the program's requirements and potential contractor pool?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' implies that the solicitation was initially intended for all responsible sources, but specific entities were subsequently excluded. This exclusion is typically based on documented justifications, such as unique capabilities, proprietary technology, national security concerns, or prior performance issues with certain contractors. It suggests that the program's requirements may be highly specialized, potentially limiting the number of companies capable of meeting them. While it indicates a competitive process was attempted, the exclusion of sources inherently narrows the field, which could potentially impact price discovery and lead to higher costs compared to a truly unrestricted competition. The rationale behind the exclusions is critical to understanding whether this approach was justified and served the government's best interest in obtaining the required training system.

How has historical spending on similar weapons system trainers evolved, and does this contract align with those trends?

Analyzing historical spending on similar weapons system trainers provides context for the current $31.7 million award. Trends in this market often show increasing costs due to technological advancements, such as the integration of virtual reality, augmented reality, and more sophisticated AI-driven scenarios. Spending may also fluctuate based on new platform introductions, fleet modernization programs, and evolving training doctrines. If historical spending shows a steady increase in the complexity and cost of trainers, this contract might align with those trends. Conversely, if spending has been relatively stable or declining, a significant increase like this could warrant closer scrutiny. Understanding the drivers of past spending—whether technological upgrades, increased demand, or shifts in procurement strategies—is key to determining if this contract represents a normal evolution or an outlier.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

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: 1700 W ALBANY ST STE 500, BROKEN ARROW, OK, 74012

Business Categories: Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,672,690

Exercised Options: $31,672,690

Current Obligation: $31,672,690

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline