Air Force awards $548M for KC-46 training, FlightSafety Defense Corp. to provide aircrew systems

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $548,390,944 ($548.4M)

Contractor: Flightsafety Defense Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-05-01

End Date: 2026-12-31

Contract Duration: 4,992 days

Daily Burn Rate: $109.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: KC-46 AIRCREW TRAINING SYSTEM (ATS)

Place of Performance

Location: FORT WORTH, TARRANT County, TEXAS, 76155

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $548.4 million to FLIGHTSAFETY DEFENSE CORPORATION for work described as: KC-46 AIRCREW TRAINING SYSTEM (ATS) Key points: 1. Value for money assessed through firm-fixed-price contract, aiming for cost predictability. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators include contract duration and potential for scope creep in complex training systems. 4. Performance context relies on contractor's ability to deliver advanced simulation and training. 5. Sector positioning places this within the defense training and simulation market.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The $548.4 million contract value for the KC-46 Aircrew Training System (ATS) appears reasonable given the scope of providing comprehensive training solutions for a major aircraft platform. Benchmarking against similar large-scale defense training systems suggests this level of investment is typical for ensuring aircrew proficiency. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the Air Force, although the total value will depend on the final delivery and performance.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. The presence of a competitive process generally supports price discovery and encourages contractors to offer their best terms. The number of bidders (5) suggests a healthy level of interest and capability within the market for such specialized training systems.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that drives down costs and improves the quality of services received.

Public Impact

Benefits aircrew of the KC-46 Pegasus tanker aircraft, enhancing their operational readiness. Delivers critical training services, including simulator operation, maintenance, and curriculum development. Geographic impact is primarily centered in Texas, where training facilities are likely located. Workforce implications include the creation and sustainment of specialized technical and instructional jobs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (4992 days) increases the risk of cost overruns due to inflation or unforeseen technical challenges.
Reliance on a single contractor for a critical training system could lead to vendor lock-in.
Complexity of advanced simulation technology may present integration and maintenance challenges.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability and incentivizes contractor efficiency.
Full and open competition suggests a robust market and potential for competitive pricing.
Contractor's established presence in defense training indicates relevant expertise.

Sector Analysis

The defense training and simulation sector is a significant market driven by the need for realistic and cost-effective preparation for complex military operations. This contract for the KC-46 ATS fits within this sector by providing advanced simulation capabilities for a key strategic asset. Comparable spending benchmarks in this area often involve multi-year contracts for sophisticated systems, reflecting the high cost of development and maintenance.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication of a small business set-aside for this contract, and the prime contractor, FlightSafety Defense Corporation, is a large business. However, large defense contracts often include subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, particularly in areas like component manufacturing, specialized software development, or logistical support. The extent of small business participation will depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract is likely managed by the Department of the Air Force, with specific program management offices responsible for monitoring performance, cost, and schedule. Accountability measures are built into the firm-fixed-price contract, linking payment to successful delivery of training services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though detailed operational oversight specifics are typically internal.

Related Government Programs

KC-46 Pegasus Program
Aircrew Training Programs
Defense Simulation and Training Contracts
Air Mobility Command Training

Risk Flags

Long contract duration
Potential for scope creep
Technological obsolescence risk

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $548.4 million to FLIGHTSAFETY DEFENSE CORPORATION. KC-46 AIRCREW TRAINING SYSTEM (ATS)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FLIGHTSAFETY DEFENSE CORPORATION.

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 $548.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-05-01. End: 2026-12-31.

What is the track record of FlightSafety Defense Corporation in delivering large-scale defense training systems?

FlightSafety Defense Corporation has a significant track record in providing simulation and training solutions for various defense platforms. They are known for developing and maintaining complex training systems, often involving high-fidelity simulators and integrated curricula. Their experience spans multiple branches of the military, suggesting a strong understanding of defense requirements and operational environments. While specific performance metrics for past projects are not detailed here, their continued success in securing large contracts indicates a generally positive reputation for capability and delivery within the defense sector. Their ability to handle programs like the KC-46 ATS relies on their established expertise in areas such as instructional design, simulator engineering, and program management.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar aircrew training systems for large aircraft?

Benchmarking the pricing of the KC-46 Aircrew Training System (ATS) against similar contracts is challenging without access to proprietary data and detailed scope comparisons. However, the total contract value of approximately $548 million over several years for a comprehensive training system for a major aircraft like the KC-46 is generally in line with industry standards for such complex programs. Large-scale defense training systems often involve substantial upfront investment in simulator development, software, and infrastructure, followed by ongoing sustainment and updates. The firm-fixed-price nature of this contract suggests an effort to control costs, but the overall value-for-money assessment would require a detailed analysis of the specific training capabilities delivered, the number of personnel trained, and the long-term operational benefits compared to alternative training methods.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

The primary risks associated with the KC-46 ATS contract include technological obsolescence, potential cost overruns due to the long duration (4992 days), and contractor performance issues. Technological obsolescence is a risk in any advanced systems contract, especially in aviation, where technology evolves rapidly. Mitigation involves incorporating flexibility in the system design and planning for future upgrades. Cost overruns are mitigated by the firm-fixed-price contract structure, which shifts some of the financial risk to the contractor, and by robust program management oversight. Contractor performance risks are managed through performance metrics, milestone payments, and the potential for contract termination if deliverables are not met. The Air Force's oversight and the competitive nature of the initial award also serve as risk mitigation factors.

How effective is the KC-46 ATS expected to be in preparing aircrews for operational missions?

The KC-46 ATS is expected to be highly effective in preparing aircrews for operational missions by providing realistic, scenario-based training in a controlled environment. Advanced simulators replicate the KC-46's cockpit, systems, and flight characteristics, allowing crews to practice normal operations, emergency procedures, and mission-specific tasks without the cost and risk associated with live flights. The system likely includes various training modules covering pilot, boom operator, and potentially other crew positions. The effectiveness is further enhanced by the ability to simulate a wide range of operational scenarios, including aerial refueling, navigation, and defensive maneuvers. The firm-fixed-price contract incentivizes the contractor to deliver a high-quality, reliable training system that meets the Air Force's performance requirements.

What are the historical spending patterns for aircrew training systems within the Department of Defense?

Historical spending patterns for aircrew training systems within the Department of Defense show a consistent and significant investment in simulation and training technologies. As platforms become more complex and operational tempo increases, the reliance on advanced simulators grows. Contracts for these systems are typically long-term, multi-year awards, often in the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, reflecting the high cost of development, procurement, and sustainment. Spending is driven by the introduction of new aircraft, upgrades to existing fleets, and the need for continuous proficiency training. The Air Force, in particular, has a substantial budget allocated to training and simulation, recognizing its critical role in maintaining combat readiness and reducing the cost and risk associated with live-fly training.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10770 E BRIARWOOD AVE STE 100, CENTENNIAL, CO, 80112

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: $1,082,994,880

Exercised Options: $577,776,436

Current Obligation: $548,390,944

Actual Outlays: $5,488,237

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline