General Electric awarded $2.87M for Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion prototyping by the Air Force
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $2,870,792 ($2.9M)
Contractor: General Electric Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2023-01-26
End Date: 2025-05-31
Contract Duration: 856 days
Daily Burn Rate: $3.4K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: NEXT GENERATION ADAPTIVE PROPULSION (NGAP) PROTOTYPING
Place of Performance
Location: CINCINNATI, HAMILTON County, OHIO, 45215
State: Ohio Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $2.9 million to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY for work described as: NEXT GENERATION ADAPTIVE PROPULSION (NGAP) PROTOTYPING Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 3. The duration of 856 days indicates a significant, long-term project. 4. The award is for prototyping, implying development and testing phases rather than immediate deployment. 5. The contractor, General Electric Company, is a major player in the aerospace industry. 6. The contract falls under Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing, a critical defense sector.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $2.87 million for a prototyping effort is moderate. Without specific benchmarks for NGAP prototyping, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type introduces inherent risk for cost control, as the government pays actual costs plus a fixed fee. This contrasts with fixed-price contracts where the contractor bears more cost risk. Benchmarking against similar advanced engine prototyping efforts would be necessary for a more precise value assessment.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The number of bidders is not specified, but this method generally fosters price discovery and encourages competitive pricing. The Air Force likely sought the best technical solution and price through this process.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value by allowing a wide range of potential contractors to compete, potentially driving down costs and improving innovation.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force, which will receive advanced propulsion prototypes. This contract supports the development of next-generation aircraft engine technology, potentially enhancing future military capabilities. The geographic impact is centered in Ohio, where General Electric Company is located and likely where the work will be performed. The contract may have implications for the aerospace engineering and manufacturing workforce, particularly in specialized engine development roles.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not rigorously monitored.
- Prototyping efforts inherently carry technical risks and uncertainties that could impact timelines and final outcomes.
- Reliance on a single large contractor, General Electric, for critical advanced technology development.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
- Focus on 'Next Generation' technology indicates investment in future military readiness and innovation.
- Contractor is a well-established leader in aerospace propulsion systems.
Sector Analysis
The aerospace and defense sector is characterized by high R&D investment, long product development cycles, and significant government procurement. Aircraft engine manufacturing is a specialized sub-sector requiring advanced materials, complex engineering, and rigorous testing. This contract for prototyping adaptive propulsion systems fits within the broader trend of modernizing military aviation capabilities to maintain technological superiority. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve R&D contracts for advanced airframe components, avionics, or other critical engine technologies within the defense budget.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside (ss=false, sb=false). Given the nature of advanced aerospace prototyping, the primary contractor is a large, established entity. There may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors to General Electric, but this is not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on GE's subcontracting strategy.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Air Force contracting and program management offices. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates close monitoring of costs and progress to ensure adherence to the fixed fee and prevent unnecessary expenditures. Transparency will be maintained through contract reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Advanced Engine Technology Development Programs
- Air Force Research and Development Contracts
- Aerospace Manufacturing and Prototyping
- Next Generation Air Dominance Initiatives
Risk Flags
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost escalation.
- Prototyping efforts are subject to technical and schedule uncertainties.
- Advanced technology development may face unforeseen challenges.
Tags
defense, aircraft-engine-and-engine-parts-manufacturing, department-of-the-air-force, general-electric-company, prototyping, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, ohio, next-generation-adaptive-propulsion, advanced-technology
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $2.9 million to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. NEXT GENERATION ADAPTIVE PROPULSION (NGAP) PROTOTYPING
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GENERAL ELECTRIC 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 $2.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2023-01-26. End: 2025-05-31.
What is the historical spending pattern for General Electric Company with the Department of Defense for aircraft engine development?
General Electric Company (GE) has a long and extensive history of receiving contracts from the Department of Defense (DoD) for aircraft engines and related services. Analyzing historical spending reveals GE as a primary contractor for numerous engine programs, including fighter jet engines (e.g., F110, F414) and bomber/transport engines. Their awards often span R&D, prototyping, production, and sustainment. For instance, in recent years, GE has secured multi-billion dollar contracts for engine sustainment and upgrades for various Air Force and Navy platforms. The specific value of prototyping contracts like the NGAP award can vary significantly based on the program's maturity and scope. A detailed analysis would require examining specific contract databases over several fiscal years to quantify the total value and frequency of such awards to GE within the defense sector.
How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types in terms of risk and potential for cost overruns in defense prototyping?
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is often used for research and development or when the scope of work is not well-defined, as is common in prototyping. Under CPFF, the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure shifts significant cost risk to the government, as the contractor is incentivized to incur costs to cover their fixed fee, and there's less direct financial motivation to control costs beyond what's necessary to complete the work. Compared to Fixed-Price contracts (like FFP or FP-EPA), where the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, CPFF offers less cost certainty for the government. However, it can be advantageous when technical uncertainties are high, allowing for flexibility. Rigorous oversight, detailed cost tracking, and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate cost overrun risks inherent in CPFF agreements, especially for complex defense projects.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) typically used to evaluate the success of an advanced propulsion prototyping contract?
Evaluating the success of an advanced propulsion prototyping contract like the NGAP project involves a multi-faceted approach focusing on technical, schedule, and cost performance. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) often include: 1. Technical Performance: Achievement of specified thrust, efficiency (specific fuel consumption), weight targets, thermal management capabilities, and integration with airframe systems. This is often measured through ground testing and simulation results. 2. Schedule Adherence: Meeting key milestones for design reviews, component testing, system integration, and prototype demonstration within the contracted timeline. 3. Cost Control: While CPFF has inherent cost risks, KPIs might track actual costs against projected budgets for different phases and the contractor's ability to manage expenditures within reasonable bounds relative to the fixed fee. 4. Reliability and Durability: Initial assessments of component lifespan and operational reliability during testing phases. 5. Manufacturability and Scalability: Early indicators of the potential for future production and integration into operational systems. Success is ultimately measured by the prototype's ability to demonstrate the feasibility and potential of the new technology to meet future operational requirements.
What is the typical market size and competitive landscape for advanced aircraft engine development and manufacturing?
The market for advanced aircraft engine development and manufacturing is highly concentrated, dominated by a few global players due to the immense R&D investment, technological complexity, and stringent regulatory requirements. Major companies include General Electric (GE), Rolls-Royce, and Pratt & Whitney (a division of Raytheon Technologies). The total market value is substantial, running into tens of billions of dollars annually, encompassing commercial aviation, military applications, and emerging sectors like urban air mobility. Competition is fierce, primarily driven by technological innovation, performance efficiency (fuel economy, thrust-to-weight ratio), reliability, and lifecycle support costs. Government defense contracts represent a significant portion of this market, particularly for next-generation military engines, where long-term development cycles and substantial funding are involved. The landscape is characterized by strategic partnerships, joint ventures, and intense intellectual property protection.
What are the potential risks associated with developing 'adaptive' propulsion systems compared to traditional jet engines?
Developing 'adaptive' propulsion systems, which are designed to change their characteristics (like bypass ratio or fan pressure ratio) in flight to optimize performance across different flight regimes, presents unique risks compared to traditional fixed-cycle jet engines. Key risks include: 1. Complexity and Integration: Adaptive cycles involve more moving parts and complex control systems, increasing the potential for mechanical failures and integration challenges with the aircraft's overall systems. 2. Control System Sophistication: Developing robust and reliable control software to manage the adaptive features across a wide range of operating conditions is a significant challenge. 3. Thermal Management: Variable operating modes can create complex thermal loads that are difficult to manage effectively. 4. Weight and Durability: The added complexity and components may increase engine weight and reduce durability if not carefully engineered. 5. Cost: The advanced technology and development effort typically translate to higher initial costs for both R&D and eventual production. 6. Unproven Technology: While promising, adaptive cycles are less mature than conventional engines, meaning there's a higher risk that the technology may not meet all performance expectations or prove operationally viable.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 1 NEUMANN WAY, CINCINNATI, OH, 45215
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: $2,909,074
Exercised Options: $2,909,074
Current Obligation: $2,870,792
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 9
Total Subaward Amount: $2,937,859
Contract Characteristics
Multi-Year Contract: Yes
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: FA862622D0010
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2023-01-26
Current End Date: 2025-05-31
Potential End Date: 2025-05-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-01-14
More Contracts from General Electric Company
- 200607!387702!1700!n00019!naval AIR Systems Command !N0001906C0088 !A!N! !N! ! !20060424!20090131!001408509!001408509!001367960!n!general Electric Company !1000 Western AVE !lynn !ma!01905!37490!009!25!lynn !essex !mass !+000018238000!n!n!000000000000!2840!gas Turbines and JET Engines, Acft & Comps !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !000 !NOT Discernable !336412!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!u!j!1!001!n!1a!z!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!y! ! ! !Y!1719!N00019!0001! ! — $2.4B (Department of Defense)
- Adaptive Engine Transition Program (aetp) — $2.1B (Department of Defense)
- 200608!001069!2100!w58rgz!usa Aviation and Missile Command!w58rgz06c0038 !A!N! !Y! ! !20051215!20101231!137488664!137488664!001367960!n!general Electric Company !1 Neumann WAY !cincinnati !oh!45215!15000!061!39!cincinnati !hamilton !ohio !+000177879422!n!n!000000000000!r706!logistics Support Services !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !000 !NOT Discernable !541330!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!n!j!1!001!n!1g!z!n!z! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!d!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $1.6B (Department of Defense)
- 200210!004379!1700!AA427 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001901C0147 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20020508!20031130!001408509!001408509!001367960!n!general Electric Company Inc !1000 Western AVE !lynn !ma!01910!37490!009!25!lynn !essex !mass !+000060619860!n!n!000000000000!2840!gas Turbines and JET Engines, Acft & Comps !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !2bjn!f414-Ge-400 !336412!E! !1! ! !C! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!n!j!1!001!n!1a!a!w!f! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!y! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $1.5B (Department of Defense)
- F414-GE-400 Engines — $1.2B (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)