Boeing awarded $40.2M for F-15SA SLAM-ER test and integration, with no competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $40,182,430 ($40.2M)

Contractor: THE Boeing Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-12-31

End Date: 2026-05-31

Contract Duration: 1,247 days

Daily Burn Rate: $32.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: NON-ACAT F-15SA SLAM-ER TEST & INTEGRATION

Place of Performance

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

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $40.2 million to THE BOEING COMPANY for work described as: NON-ACAT F-15SA SLAM-ER TEST & INTEGRATION Key points: 1. Contract awarded for specialized aircraft missile system testing and integration. 2. Sole-source award raises questions about potential price overruns and limited market options. 3. Long contract duration of over three years suggests complex integration requirements. 4. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but initial pricing needs scrutiny. 5. Focus on F-15SA platform indicates specific defense modernization efforts. 6. Geographic location in Missouri may point to specific testing or manufacturing facilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $40.2 million for testing and integration of the SLAM-ER missile system on the F-15SA platform appears significant. Without comparable sole-source contracts for similar integration efforts, it is difficult to benchmark the value definitively. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control, but the absence of competition means there was no market pressure to ensure the most competitive pricing. Further analysis of the labor hours, material costs, and overhead associated with this specific integration is needed to assess true value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis to The Boeing Company. This indicates that the government determined Boeing was the only responsible source capable of performing the required work, likely due to proprietary knowledge, existing system integration, or unique manufacturing capabilities related to the F-15SA and the SLAM-ER missile. The lack of competition means that taxpayers did not benefit from a competitive bidding process that could have potentially driven down costs.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit price discovery and can result in higher costs for taxpayers compared to competitively bid contracts. The absence of multiple bidders means the government could not leverage market forces to secure the best possible price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force and potentially allied nations operating the F-15SA, receiving enhanced missile system capabilities. Services delivered include critical testing and integration of the SLAM-ER missile system, ensuring operational readiness and effectiveness. Geographic impact is concentrated in Missouri, likely involving specific Air Force bases or Boeing facilities for testing and integration activities. Workforce implications include specialized engineering, testing, and technical roles within The Boeing Company and potentially supporting government personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially leading to higher costs.
Long contract duration may increase risk of cost overruns if not managed tightly.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical integration tasks.
Lack of transparency in pricing due to non-competitive nature.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Boeing's established expertise in F-15 platform and missile integration.
Specific focus on a key defense asset (F-15SA) and weapon system (SLAM-ER).

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on aircraft systems and missile integration. The market for such specialized integration services is often dominated by original equipment manufacturers like Boeing due to the complexity and proprietary nature of the systems involved. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the scope of work, but defense spending on aircraft modernization and weapon system integration is a significant portion of the overall defense budget.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, the prime contractor, The Boeing Company, is a large aerospace manufacturer. While Boeing may utilize small businesses for subcontracting, the primary award is not directed towards small business participation. The absence of a set-aside means opportunities for small businesses to directly compete for this specific prime contract were not present.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Air Force and the Department of Defense. Given it's a sole-source award, there may be increased scrutiny from contracting officers and potentially the Government Accountability Office (GAO) if protests arise. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature, but contract performance reports and milestone tracking would be key accountability measures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

F-15 Aircraft Modernization Programs
SLAM-ER Missile System Procurement and Support
Air Force Weapon System Integration Contracts
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Oversight
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Support for F-15SA

Risk Flags

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $40.2 million to THE BOEING COMPANY. NON-ACAT F-15SA SLAM-ER TEST & INTEGRATION

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 $40.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-12-31. End: 2026-05-31.

What is the historical spending by the Department of Defense on SLAM-ER missile system integration for the F-15SA platform?

Historical spending data specifically for the integration of the SLAM-ER missile system onto the F-15SA platform is not readily available in the provided data. This contract, valued at approximately $40.2 million, appears to be a significant, if not the primary, investment for this specific integration effort. The F-15SA is a variant of the F-15 Eagle, and the SLAM-ER (Standoff Land Attack Missile - Expanded Response) is a long-range, precision cruise missile. Integration efforts for such advanced weapon systems are complex and costly, often involving extensive testing, software development, and hardware modifications. Without prior contracts for this exact integration, it's difficult to establish a historical spending pattern. Future contracts may arise for sustainment or upgrades, but this initial integration appears to be a distinct phase.

How does the $40.2 million contract value compare to other sole-source awards for similar aircraft integration services?

Comparing the $40.2 million sole-source award for F-15SA SLAM-ER integration to other sole-source contracts for similar services is challenging without access to a broader database of defense contracts with detailed scope-of-work comparisons. However, for complex weapon system integration onto advanced fighter platforms, contract values in the tens of millions of dollars are not uncommon, especially when involving a single, specialized provider like the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Sole-source awards inherently lack the price discovery of competitive bidding, meaning the value is primarily assessed against the estimated cost of performance rather than market-driven pricing. The firm fixed-price nature of this contract provides some cost certainty, but the absence of competition means the government relies heavily on Boeing's cost estimation and justification.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source award for critical defense system integration?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award for critical defense system integration, such as the F-15SA SLAM-ER test and integration, is the potential for inflated pricing due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without competing bids, the government cannot be assured it is receiving the best possible price for the services rendered. Another risk is contractor complacency; the sole provider may have less incentive to innovate or optimize performance when there is no threat of losing future business to competitors. Furthermore, sole-source awards can create vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to switch providers or integrate alternative solutions in the future. Dependence on a single entity for critical capabilities also poses a supply chain and operational risk if that entity experiences financial difficulties or production issues.

What is The Boeing Company's track record with F-15 platform modifications and weapon system integration?

The Boeing Company has an extensive and long-standing track record with the F-15 platform, having been the prime contractor for its development, production, and sustainment for decades. This includes numerous upgrades, modifications, and integration of various weapon systems onto different F-15 variants for both the U.S. Air Force and international customers. Boeing's expertise encompasses avionics, structural modifications, and the integration of advanced munitions like the SLAM-ER. Their deep familiarity with the F-15's architecture, systems, and operational requirements positions them as a logical, albeit sole-source, provider for complex integration tasks. This contract leverages that established expertise, reducing the technical risk associated with integrating new capabilities onto a proven platform.

What are the potential implications of the 'NON-ACAT' designation for this contract?

The 'NON-ACAT' designation indicates that this contract is not subject to the rigorous Acquisition Category (ACAT) oversight and approval processes mandated by the Department of Defense for major defense acquisition programs. ACAT programs (ranging from ACAT I for the largest programs down to ACAT IV) involve specific milestones, reviews, and reporting requirements designed to manage high-cost, high-risk programs. A 'NON-ACAT' designation suggests this effort is considered less critical, lower in cost, or falls outside the typical definition of a major acquisition program, potentially allowing for a more streamlined acquisition process. However, it also means that some of the stringent oversight and validation inherent in ACAT programs are absent, which could influence the level of scrutiny applied to cost, schedule, and performance.

How does the contract duration of 1247 days (approx. 3.4 years) impact the assessment of its value and risk?

A contract duration of approximately 3.4 years for testing and integration is substantial and suggests a complex, multi-faceted effort. From a value perspective, a longer duration can sometimes allow for more thorough testing and refinement, potentially leading to a more robust and reliable final product. However, it also increases the risk of cost escalation, especially if the contract were not firm fixed-price or if significant unforeseen issues arise. For a firm fixed-price contract, the risk of cost overruns primarily lies with the contractor, but extended timelines can still strain resources and potentially impact the contractor's ability to perform on other projects. The extended period necessitates robust program management and oversight from the government to ensure milestones are met and the project stays on track without unnecessary delays or scope creep.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: QUALITY CONTROL, TEST, INSPECTION › EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TESTING

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

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: $40,182,430

Exercised Options: $40,182,430

Current Obligation: $40,182,430

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 4

Total Subaward Amount: $899,829

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA863421D2703

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline