DoD's $264.6M BIG SAFARI contract awarded to BAE Systems for aircraft parts, lacking competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,462,540 ($26.5M)

Contractor: BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-06-14

End Date: 2021-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,296 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: ACAT II BIG SAFARI

Place of Performance

Location: NASHUA, HILLSBOROUGH County, NEW HAMPSHIRE, 03060

State: New Hampshire Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.5 million to BAE SYSTEMS INFORMATION AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS INTEGRATION INC. for work described as: ACAT II BIG SAFARI Key points: 1. Significant contract value of $264.6 million. 2. Sole-source award to BAE Systems, indicating limited competition. 3. Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type may incentivize higher costs. 4. Focus on 'Other Aircraft Parts' falls within the Defense sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, combined with a lack of competition, raises concerns about potential overpricing. Benchmarking against similar sole-source contracts for specialized aircraft parts is difficult without more data.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning there was no open competition. This significantly limits price discovery and potentially leads to higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competitive bidding on this substantial contract likely results in higher taxpayer costs than if multiple vendors had competed.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for critical aircraft components due to the absence of competition. The Department of Defense relies on BAE Systems for essential parts, highlighting potential vendor lock-in. The long duration of the contract (over 3 years) suggests a sustained need, making the lack of competition more impactful.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
Lack of transparency in pricing due to no competition

Positive Signals

Awarded to a known defense contractor
Contract supports Department of the Air Force needs

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically related to aircraft parts manufacturing. Spending in this area is critical for national security, but competitive procurement is essential to ensure value for money.

Small Business Impact

The contract was awarded to BAE Systems, a large defense contractor, and there is no indication of small business involvement. This award does not appear to benefit small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

The sole-source nature of this award warrants scrutiny from oversight bodies to ensure the government is not being overcharged and that justifications for not competing are robust.

Related Government Programs

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Air Force Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
Potential for cost overruns
Limited transparency in pricing
No small business participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.5 million to BAE SYSTEMS INFORMATION AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS INTEGRATION INC.. ACAT II BIG SAFARI

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BAE SYSTEMS INFORMATION AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS INTEGRATION INC..

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 $26.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-06-14. End: 2021-12-31.

What specific justifications were provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, and were alternatives explored?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED.' Typically, sole-source awards require a justification, such as a unique capability or proprietary technology. Without this justification, it's impossible to assess if alternatives were truly unavailable or if competitive options were overlooked, potentially impacting value for taxpayers.

How does the 'cost plus fixed fee' structure impact the final cost compared to other contract types in this specific aircraft parts category?

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts allow the contractor to recover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fee. While providing some incentive for efficiency, this structure can lead to higher final costs compared to fixed-price contracts, especially if cost overruns occur. The lack of competition exacerbates this risk, as BAE Systems may have less pressure to minimize costs.

What is the benchmark cost for similar 'Other Aircraft Parts' procured through competitive means by the DoD or other agencies?

Benchmarking is difficult without specific part details and competitive data. However, the $264.6 million total award value over approximately three years suggests significant expenditure. If comparable parts were procured competitively, the cost per unit or overall contract value would likely be lower, indicating a potential loss of taxpayer funds on this sole-source award.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: COMM/DETECT/COHERENT RADIATION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Compagnie DE Developpement DE L'eau S.A.

Address: 65 SPIT BROOK RD, NASHUA, NH, 03060

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Foreign Owned, Foreign-Owned and U.S.-Incorporated Business, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,462,540

Exercised Options: $26,462,540

Current Obligation: $26,462,540

Actual Outlays: $2,291,829

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 7

Total Subaward Amount: $7,489,968

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA862016G3028

IDV Type: BOA

Timeline