DoD spent $206.7M on Cessna aircraft for Afghanistan, with 2 bids received

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $206,717,680 ($206.7M)

Contractor: Cessna Aircraft Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-05-26

End Date: 2015-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,588 days

Daily Burn Rate: $130.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: FMS AFGHANISTAN BASIC TRAINER LIGHT LIFT FAMILY OF SYSTEMS

Place of Performance

Location: WICHITA, SEDGWICK County, KANSAS, 67215, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Kansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $206.7 million to CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY for work described as: FMS AFGHANISTAN BASIC TRAINER LIGHT LIFT FAMILY OF SYSTEMS Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the firm-fixed-price contract type and the nature of the specialized aircraft. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a moderately competitive environment with two bids. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, stemming from the long duration and the geopolitical context of Afghanistan. 4. Performance context is tied to supporting training missions in a complex operational environment. 5. Sector positioning is within the defense aviation manufacturing and support industry.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $206.7 million for 130 aircraft over approximately four years suggests a per-unit cost of roughly $1.6 million. This figure needs to be benchmarked against similar light lift trainer aircraft procured by the government or comparable international sales. Without specific data on the features and capabilities of these particular Cessna aircraft, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government.

Cost Per Unit: Approximately $1.6 million per aircraft (130 aircraft / $206.7M total value).

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. Two bids were received, suggesting a reasonable level of competition, though not extensive. This level of competition is generally sufficient to promote price discovery and encourage competitive pricing from the bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: With two bidders, taxpayers likely benefited from a competitive price, avoiding potential overpayment that could occur in a sole-source or limited competition scenario.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. military and allied forces operating in Afghanistan, who receive enhanced training capabilities. Services delivered include the provision of light lift aircraft essential for training pilots and support personnel. The geographic impact is focused on Afghanistan, where the aircraft are intended for use. Workforce implications include jobs in aircraft manufacturing, maintenance, and potentially training support roles within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 4 years) increases exposure to potential cost overruns or scope creep if not managed tightly.
Operating in a challenging geopolitical environment like Afghanistan introduces inherent risks to program execution and asset security.
Dependence on a single manufacturer for a specific family of systems can create long-term sustainment challenges if not planned for.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, providing budget certainty.
Full and open competition, even with two bidders, generally leads to more favorable pricing than sole-source awards.
The aircraft are intended for training, a critical but generally less complex mission than direct combat operations, potentially reducing operational risks.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on aircraft manufacturing and support for military applications. The market for specialized trainer and light lift aircraft is competitive, with several major manufacturers vying for government contracts. Spending in this area is often driven by specific operational needs and modernization efforts. Benchmarks for similar aircraft can vary widely based on payload, range, avionics, and intended mission.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract was specifically set aside for small businesses, nor is there information suggesting significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The primary contractor, Cessna Aircraft Company, is a large aerospace manufacturer. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless specific components or services were sourced from smaller firms.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF)
Light Utility Helicopters (LUH)
Fixed-Wing Aircraft Procurement
Afghan Air Force Training Programs

Risk Flags

Geopolitical Instability
Operational Environment Risk
Long-Term Sustainment Uncertainty
Potential for Attrition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $206.7 million to CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY. FMS AFGHANISTAN BASIC TRAINER LIGHT LIFT FAMILY OF SYSTEMS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CESSNA AIRCRAFT COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $206.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-05-26. End: 2015-09-30.

What is the track record of Cessna Aircraft Company in delivering similar light lift aircraft to the U.S. military or allied nations?

Cessna Aircraft Company, now part of Textron Aviation, has a long history of producing various aircraft, including those used for training and light utility purposes. They have supplied aircraft to military and government customers globally for decades. While specific details on past performance for identical 'light lift family of systems' contracts for the U.S. military might require deeper database searches, Cessna's general reputation is that of an established manufacturer. Their experience includes producing aircraft like the SkyCourier and previously the Caravan, which have seen use in various roles, including cargo and personnel transport, and can be adapted for training. Assessing their track record specifically for this contract would involve reviewing past performance evaluations and delivery histories for similar military procurements, looking for on-time delivery, adherence to specifications, and overall customer satisfaction.

How does the per-unit cost of these Cessna aircraft compare to other light lift or trainer aircraft procured by the DoD around the same period?

The estimated per-unit cost of approximately $1.6 million for these Cessna aircraft needs careful comparison. During the period of this contract (award in 2011, completion in 2015), the DoD procured various types of aircraft. For instance, trainer aircraft like the T-6 Texan II had different cost structures depending on configuration and quantity. Light utility aircraft procured for different theaters or missions could also vary significantly. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable aircraft in terms of payload, range, speed, avionics sophistication, and intended mission profile (e.g., basic training vs. advanced, light transport vs. reconnaissance). Without direct comparisons of aircraft with similar specifications and mission roles procured under similar contract types (firm-fixed-price) and competition levels, the $1.6 million figure is difficult to definitively label as high or low. However, it falls within a plausible range for specialized, mission-configured aircraft.

What specific risks were associated with operating and maintaining these aircraft in the Afghan environment, and how were they mitigated?

Operating and maintaining aircraft in Afghanistan presented significant risks, including harsh environmental conditions (dust, extreme temperatures), challenging terrain, security threats to personnel and assets, and limited logistical infrastructure. For these Cessna aircraft, risks could include accelerated wear and tear on engines and airframes due to dust, potential damage from ground fire or indirect attacks, and difficulties in securing maintenance personnel and spare parts in remote or hostile areas. Mitigation strategies likely involved robust maintenance schedules, specialized filtration systems, secure operating bases, comprehensive security protocols for ground operations and transit, and potentially contractor logistics support teams embedded with Afghan forces. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract might have incentivized the contractor to manage these operational risks efficiently to maintain profitability, but the ultimate responsibility for operational safety and security often lies with the end-user command.

What was the intended role of these 'basic trainer light lift' aircraft within the broader context of the Afghan military's capabilities?

The 'basic trainer light lift' designation suggests these aircraft were intended for multiple roles within the Afghan Air Force (AAF). Primarily, they would serve as platforms for pilot training, enabling Afghan pilots to gain foundational flight skills and experience in fixed-wing operations. The 'light lift' capability implies they could also be used for secondary roles such as light cargo transport, personnel movement, casualty evacuation (CASEVAC), or potentially border surveillance and reconnaissance missions, especially in areas inaccessible by heavier aircraft. Equipping the AAF with such versatile platforms aimed to enhance their operational self-sufficiency and broaden their ability to support ground forces and national security objectives across Afghanistan, moving beyond reliance on coalition airpower.

How has U.S. spending on fixed-wing aircraft for Afghanistan evolved over time, and does this contract represent a significant shift or continuation?

U.S. spending on fixed-wing aircraft for Afghanistan has evolved significantly, often tied to the changing mission and capabilities desired for Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). Early efforts focused on basic transport and attack capabilities. This contract, awarded in 2011 and completed in 2015, falls within a period where the U.S. was heavily invested in building the capacity of the Afghan Air Force to become more self-reliant. The procurement of trainer/light lift aircraft like these Cessnas represents a continuation of efforts to establish a foundational air capability. It wasn't necessarily a radical shift but rather a component of a broader strategy to equip the AAF with a mix of aircraft suitable for training and light utility roles, complementing other procurements like helicopters (e.g., Mi-17s, MD 530s) and potentially larger transport aircraft. Spending patterns fluctuated based on security assessments and capacity-building goals.

What are the potential long-term sustainment implications for these aircraft once the initial contract period ends, especially given the context of Afghanistan?

Long-term sustainment of these Cessna aircraft in Afghanistan presents considerable challenges. The initial contract covers procurement and likely initial support, but ongoing sustainment requires a continuous supply of spare parts, trained maintenance personnel, technical data, and depot-level repair capabilities. Given the demanding operational environment and the potential for attrition, ensuring a steady flow of parts and expertise post-contract is critical. This often necessitates follow-on contracts for sustainment, training, and potentially further aircraft procurements. The U.S. has historically provided significant sustainment support for Afghan National Security Forces equipment. However, the long-term viability depends on sustained funding commitments, the stability of the Afghan government and its security forces, and the ability to establish robust local maintenance and supply chains, which have proven difficult in the past.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Textron Inc (UEI: 001338979)

Address: ONE CESSNA BLVD, WICHITA, KS, 67215

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: $359,545,994

Exercised Options: $206,717,680

Current Obligation: $206,717,680

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline