Boeing awarded $11.6M for Training Device Acquisition and Support (TDAS) Follow-On by the Air Force

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,649,274 ($11.6M)

Contractor: THE Boeing Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-07-01

End Date: 2027-03-30

Contract Duration: 637 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TRAINING DEVICE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT (TDAS) FOLLOW-ON

Place of Performance

Location: SAINT LOUIS, SAINT LOUIS County, MISSOURI, 63134

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.6 million to THE BOEING COMPANY for work described as: TRAINING DEVICE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT (TDAS) FOLLOW-ON Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single, established prime contractor, suggesting a focus on continuity and specialized expertise. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that cost risks are primarily borne by the contractor. 3. The contract duration of approximately 2 years suggests a need for ongoing, but not indefinite, support. 4. Awarded by the Department of the Air Force, this contract likely supports critical training infrastructure. 5. The specific NAICS code points to a specialized manufacturing sector related to aircraft components. 6. The contract value is moderate, indicating a focused scope rather than a large-scale program acquisition.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $11.6 million over roughly two years for training device acquisition and support appears reasonable for specialized defense systems. Benchmarking against similar contracts for training systems or aircraft component manufacturing would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts cost risk to Boeing, which is generally favorable for the government when the scope is well-defined. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to industry standards for similar devices, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the award to a known entity suggests a degree of pre-existing value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The data does not specify the number of bidders, but full and open competition generally fosters a competitive environment that can lead to better pricing and innovation. This approach suggests the Air Force sought the best available solution through a broad solicitation process.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it maximizes the potential for competitive pricing and ensures the government receives the best value by considering a wide range of potential providers.

Public Impact

Air Force pilots and aircrews will benefit from updated or maintained training devices, enhancing combat readiness. The services delivered will likely involve the manufacturing, integration, or sustainment of sophisticated training simulators or devices. The geographic impact is primarily within the United States, supporting Air Force installations where training occurs. Workforce implications may include specialized manufacturing and technical support roles within The Boeing Company and its supply chain.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in if the follow-on contract is highly specialized and difficult to transition.
Reliance on a single prime contractor may limit opportunities for smaller, innovative firms to enter the supply chain.
The firm-fixed-price nature requires careful scope management to avoid change orders that could increase costs.

Positive Signals

Award to a large, established contractor like Boeing suggests a high likelihood of successful delivery and technical capability.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.
Full and open competition indicates a robust process was used to select the contractor, aiming for best value.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on training systems and related components. The market for defense training systems is substantial, driven by the need for realistic and cost-effective pilot and crew training. The NAICS code 336413, 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing,' places this within a segment that supplies critical components for aviation platforms. Spending in this area is often characterized by long-term sustainment contracts and the development of advanced simulation technologies to reduce reliance on live training exercises.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). While Boeing is a large prime contractor, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The extent of small business subcontracting will depend on Boeing's internal policies and the specific requirements of the TDAS program. Without a formal small business subcontracting plan detailed in the award, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is uncertain, though large prime contracts often involve a tiered subcontracting structure.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will be managed by the Department of the Air Force, likely through program management offices and contracting officers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which obligates Boeing to deliver specified goods or services within the agreed price. Transparency is typically facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Maintenance and Repair
Flight Simulation Equipment
Defense Training Services
Aerospace Manufacturing
Military Personnel Training

Risk Flags

Potential for schedule delays impacting training schedules.
Risk of technical obsolescence if devices are not regularly updated.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical training support.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.6 million to THE BOEING COMPANY. TRAINING DEVICE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT (TDAS) FOLLOW-ON

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE BOEING COMPANY.

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 $11.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-07-01. End: 2027-03-30.

What is the historical spending trend for the Training Device Acquisition and Support (TDAS) program or similar initiatives?

Analyzing historical spending for the TDAS program or comparable training system contracts is crucial for understanding long-term investment and identifying potential cost escalations or efficiencies. Without specific historical data for TDAS, we can infer trends from broader defense training budgets. The Department of Defense consistently allocates significant funds to training and simulation, driven by evolving threats and the need for advanced warfighter capabilities. Spending often fluctuates based on modernization cycles, new platform introductions, and geopolitical demands. For instance, major aircraft programs typically necessitate corresponding investments in their associated training devices. Benchmarking this $11.6 million award against previous TDAS awards or similar Air Force training system contracts would reveal if this represents a typical investment level, an increase, or a decrease, providing context on the program's lifecycle stage and funding priorities.

How does the per-unit cost or total contract value compare to industry benchmarks for similar training devices?

A key aspect of assessing value for money is comparing the contract's cost metrics against industry benchmarks. For this $11.6 million contract, which covers acquisition and support over approximately two years, a direct per-unit cost comparison is difficult without knowing the exact number and type of training devices involved. However, advanced flight simulators or complex training systems can range from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars each, depending on fidelity, features, and technology. The total contract value suggests it might cover a moderate number of devices or a significant support package for existing ones. Comparing this value to publicly available data on similar contracts awarded by other military branches or even commercial aviation training providers could indicate if the pricing is competitive. Factors like technological sophistication, required maintenance, and software updates heavily influence these costs. The firm-fixed-price nature implies Boeing has factored these into their bid, but external benchmarking remains essential for validating the government's value.

What is The Boeing Company's track record with similar defense training system contracts?

The Boeing Company has an extensive and well-established track record in developing, manufacturing, and supporting complex defense systems, including training and simulation technologies. They are a major prime contractor for numerous U.S. military aircraft programs, such as the F-15, F/A-18, and T-7 Red Hawk, all of which require sophisticated training devices. Boeing's experience encompasses a wide range of simulation technologies, from full-flight simulators to virtual reality training environments. Their history includes both successful program execution and instances of cost overruns or schedule delays, common in large defense contracts. For TDAS specifically, their involvement suggests continuity and familiarity with the system's requirements. Evaluating past performance metrics, such as on-time delivery, adherence to budget (where applicable), and technical performance on similar contracts, would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and capability in executing this follow-on award.

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

Primary risks associated with this contract include potential technical obsolescence of training devices over time, performance degradation requiring extensive maintenance, and the possibility of cost growth if the scope is not tightly managed, despite the firm-fixed-price structure. Schedule delays in delivery or support could impact Air Force training readiness. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust government oversight, clear performance metrics defined in the contract, and potentially phased delivery schedules. The firm-fixed-price nature inherently mitigates cost overrun risk for the government, placing it on Boeing. However, Boeing's own risk mitigation would involve detailed planning, supply chain management, and contingency planning for technical challenges. The selection of an experienced contractor like Boeing also serves as a risk-reduction measure, assuming their past performance is strong.

How does this contract align with the Air Force's broader modernization and readiness goals?

This contract directly aligns with the Air Force's core mission of maintaining combat readiness and modernizing its capabilities. Training devices are essential for ensuring pilots and aircrews are proficient in operating advanced aircraft and executing complex missions in realistic, yet safe, environments. By acquiring and supporting these devices, the Air Force can reduce reliance on expensive live-fly training, enhance skill retention, and prepare personnel for future operational demands. The 'Follow-On' nature of the award suggests it supports an existing, proven system, indicating a focus on sustaining current readiness levels while potentially incorporating incremental upgrades. This approach is often more cost-effective than developing entirely new training systems, allowing resources to be allocated towards other modernization priorities.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6200 JAMES S MCDONNELL BLVD, SAINT LOUIS, MO, 63134

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: $48,477,164

Exercised Options: $18,360,772

Current Obligation: $11,649,274

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 1

Total Subaward Amount: $71,178

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA862123DB027

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline