DoD awards $23.8M for two F-16 aircrew training devices to CAE USA INC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,825,052 ($23.8M)

Contractor: CAE USA Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-10-15

End Date: 2014-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,872 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TWO MOROCCAN F-16C BLOCK 52 AIRCREW TRAINING DEVICES (ATDS)

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, TARRANT County, TEXAS, 76011

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $23.8 million to CAE USA INC. for work described as: TWO MOROCCAN F-16C BLOCK 52 AIRCREW TRAINING DEVICES (ATDS) Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in advanced simulation technology for aircrew. 2. The sole-source nature of this award warrants scrutiny regarding potential price inflation. 3. The duration of the contract suggests a long-term need for sustained training capabilities. 4. The performance location in Texas may indicate a concentration of defense industry activity in the region. 5. The absence of a specific Product Service Code (PSC) makes direct comparison to similar procurements challenging.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $23.8 million for two F-16 training devices appears substantial. Without comparable sole-source awards or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively benchmark the value for money. The contract's duration of 1872 days (approximately 5 years) suggests a significant commitment, and the pricing should be evaluated against the technological sophistication and expected lifespan of the devices. The lack of competition inherently limits the ability to assess if the government received the best possible price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. The data indicates the contract was not available for competition, suggesting a specific justification was likely provided, such as unique capabilities or proprietary technology held by CAE USA INC. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no direct price negotiation driven by market forces, potentially leading to a higher cost for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit taxpayer value by removing the competitive pressure that typically drives down prices. This can result in the government paying more than it might in a competitive environment.

Public Impact

Moroccan F-16 pilots will benefit from advanced training, enhancing their operational readiness and proficiency. The contract supports the delivery of two sophisticated aircrew training devices, crucial for simulating complex combat scenarios. The geographic impact is primarily within Texas, where the contractor is located, potentially supporting local jobs and the defense industrial base. The contract does not appear to have direct workforce implications beyond the contractor's existing personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potential for cost savings.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess effectiveness.
Contract duration is long, increasing exposure to potential cost overruns or obsolescence.

Positive Signals

Award supports critical training for an allied nation's air force, enhancing interoperability.
Contracting for advanced simulation devices can reduce the need for costly and risky live-fly training missions.
The contractor, CAE USA INC., is a known entity in the simulation and training market.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on simulation and training systems. The market for defense simulation is substantial, driven by the need for cost-effective and safe training solutions. CAE USA INC. is a significant player in this market, providing advanced training devices for various military platforms. This award represents a portion of the government's investment in maintaining and enhancing the capabilities of allied air forces through technological solutions.

Small Business Impact

The contract data does not indicate any small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting requirements. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal, unless CAE USA INC. voluntarily engages small businesses for specific components or services.

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 defined in the contract terms and conditions, focusing on delivery schedules, technical specifications, and performance standards. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the absence of readily available public cost data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

F-16 Aircraft Sustainment
Military Training and Simulation Equipment
Foreign Military Sales Support
Aerospace Defense Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for cost overruns
Long contract duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $23.8 million to CAE USA INC.. TWO MOROCCAN F-16C BLOCK 52 AIRCREW TRAINING DEVICES (ATDS)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CAE USA 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 $23.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-10-15. End: 2014-11-30.

What is CAE USA INC.'s track record with the Department of Defense, particularly concerning F-16 training systems?

CAE USA INC. has a well-established history of providing simulation and training solutions to the Department of Defense and allied nations. They are a recognized leader in developing and manufacturing flight simulators, including those for advanced fighter aircraft like the F-16. Their portfolio often includes full-mission simulators, part-task trainers, and integrated training systems. While specific contract performance details for this particular award are not publicly detailed, CAE's general reputation in the defense simulation sector is strong, characterized by technological expertise and a significant presence in delivering complex training systems. Past performance reviews and contract awards from the DoD would provide a more granular understanding of their specific track record on similar projects.

How does the $23.8 million cost for two F-16 training devices compare to similar procurements, considering it was a sole-source award?

Benchmarking the $23.8 million cost for two F-16 training devices is challenging due to the sole-source nature of this award and the lack of detailed cost breakdowns. Sole-source contracts inherently lack the price discovery mechanism of competition, which can lead to higher costs. To perform a true value comparison, one would need access to data on previous sole-source awards for similar F-16 training devices by CAE or other manufacturers, or data from competitive procurements of comparable simulation systems. Without such comparative data, it's difficult to ascertain if the price is reasonable or inflated. The complexity, features, and technological generation of the specific training devices would also be critical factors in any cost-benefit analysis.

What are the primary risks associated with this sole-source contract for aircrew training devices?

The primary risk associated with this sole-source contract is the potential for overpayment due to the lack of competitive bidding. Without market pressure, the government may not achieve the most cost-effective price. Another risk is vendor lock-in; if the devices are highly specialized or integrated with proprietary software, future upgrades or maintenance could be exclusively reliant on CAE USA INC., potentially at premium prices. Furthermore, the long contract duration (over 5 years) increases the risk of technological obsolescence if the training needs evolve rapidly or if newer, more advanced simulation technologies emerge. Ensuring robust contract oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective are F-16 aircrew training devices in enhancing pilot proficiency and operational readiness compared to traditional flight training?

Advanced F-16 aircrew training devices (ATDs) are highly effective in enhancing pilot proficiency and operational readiness, often surpassing traditional flight training in specific aspects. These simulators allow pilots to practice a wide range of scenarios, including high-risk maneuvers, complex tactical situations, and emergency procedures, in a safe and controlled environment. This repetition and exposure to diverse situations can accelerate skill development and retention. Furthermore, ATDs significantly reduce the costs, risks, and environmental impact associated with live-fly training missions. They provide a consistent and repeatable training experience, ensuring all pilots receive standardized instruction. While live-fly training remains essential for developing a true feel for the aircraft and its operational envelope, simulation technology is a critical, cost-effective complement that significantly boosts overall pilot readiness.

What is the historical spending pattern for F-16 training systems by the Department of Defense?

Historical spending on F-16 training systems by the Department of Defense has been substantial and ongoing, reflecting the long service life of the F-16 platform and the continuous need for pilot training and modernization. The DoD invests significantly in simulation and training (S&T) programs to maintain aircrew proficiency and readiness. This spending encompasses a range of training devices, from basic part-task trainers to full-mission simulators, as well as associated software, upgrades, and maintenance. Spending fluctuates based on modernization programs, fleet size, operational tempo, and the introduction of new training technologies. The DoD often procures these systems through competitive contracts, but sole-source awards for specialized upgrades or unique systems also occur. Analyzing historical spending data would reveal trends in investment levels and the types of training systems prioritized over time.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (UEI: 008898843)

Address: 2200 ARLINGTON DOWNS ROAD, ARLINGTON, TX, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Federally Funded Research and Development Corp, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $24,305,190

Exercised Options: $23,825,052

Current Obligation: $23,825,052

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline