Boeing awarded $125M F-15 RAPID RESPONSE DELIVERY ORDER by Air Force, raising value-for-money questions
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $125,432,752 ($125.4M)
Contractor: THE Boeing Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2027-07-31
End Date: 2027-09-21
Contract Duration: 52 days
Daily Burn Rate: $2.4M/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: F-15 -- RAPID RESPONSE DELIVERY ORDER
Place of Performance
Location: SAINT LOUIS, SAINT LOUIS County, MISSOURI, 63134
State: Missouri Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $125.4 million to THE BOEING COMPANY for work described as: F-15 -- RAPID RESPONSE DELIVERY ORDER Key points: 1. The contract's value-for-money is questionable given the sole-source award and lack of competitive bidding. 2. Competition dynamics are absent, as this was a sole-source delivery order, potentially limiting price discovery. 3. Risk indicators include the sole-source nature and the cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing structure, which can incentivize higher costs. 4. Performance context is limited to a 52-month duration for aircraft manufacturing, with specific deliverables not detailed. 5. Sector positioning is within the defense aircraft manufacturing industry, a critical but often high-cost sector.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Benchmarking the value of this $125.4 million delivery order is challenging due to its sole-source nature and the absence of comparable contract data. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure, while common for complex defense procurements, carries inherent risks of cost overruns. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to ascertain if the fixed fee adequately incentivizes efficiency or if the overall cost reflects a fair market price for the specified aircraft manufacturing services.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This delivery order was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple potential suppliers. This approach is typically used when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement, or in urgent situations. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery and potential cost savings that typically arise from a competitive bidding process.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible price for these aircraft manufacturing services due to the absence of a competitive bidding process. Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs compared to competed contracts.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force, which receives critical aircraft manufacturing services. The services delivered involve the manufacturing of F-15 aircraft, crucial for national defense capabilities. The geographic impact is centered around the contractor's facilities in Missouri, supporting local employment and economic activity. Workforce implications include the potential for job creation and retention within the aerospace manufacturing sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits price competition.
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract may not fully incentivize cost control.
- Lack of detailed performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
- Long-term duration could expose contract to cost escalations.
Positive Signals
- Award to a known, established defense contractor (Boeing).
- Delivery order supports critical Air Force aircraft manufacturing needs.
- Fixed fee component provides some cost certainty compared to cost-plus-award-fee.
- Contract duration aligns with potential long-term defense planning.
Sector Analysis
The defense aircraft manufacturing sector is characterized by high barriers to entry, significant technological complexity, and substantial government investment. Major players like Boeing are essential for national security, producing advanced platforms. Spending in this sector is often driven by modernization needs and geopolitical considerations. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish precisely for unique aircraft variants, but multi-billion dollar programs are common for fighter jet development and production.
Small Business Impact
This contract does not appear to involve a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'ss': false and 'sb': false. Consequently, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by this specific award. The primary contractor, Boeing, is a large aerospace firm, and any subcontracting would be at their discretion, not as a result of a set-aside requirement for this particular delivery order.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices. The Air Force is responsible for ensuring performance and adherence to the contract terms. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the proprietary aspects of defense manufacturing. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- F-15 Program
- Air Force Aircraft Procurement
- Defense Manufacturing Contracts
- Sole-Source Defense Acquisitions
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee pricing
- Lack of competitive bidding
- Potential for cost overruns
Tags
defense, aircraft-manufacturing, department-of-defense, us-air-force, missouri, delivery-order, sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee, large-contract, f-15
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $125.4 million to THE BOEING COMPANY. F-15 -- RAPID RESPONSE DELIVERY ORDER
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 $125.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2027-07-31. End: 2027-09-21.
What is the track record of The Boeing Company in fulfilling similar large-scale aircraft manufacturing contracts for the Department of Defense?
The Boeing Company has a long and extensive history of manufacturing complex aircraft for the Department of Defense, including various models of the F-15, F/A-18, C-17, and B-52 bomber. They are a primary contractor for many critical defense aviation programs. While generally considered a reliable supplier, Boeing has faced scrutiny and challenges on some large programs regarding cost overruns, production delays, and quality control issues. However, their deep experience and established infrastructure make them a go-to provider for many advanced military aircraft requirements, including the F-15 platform which they have produced for decades.
How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure compare to other contract types in terms of value for money for aircraft manufacturing?
The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) structure is common for complex, high-risk defense procurements where the scope of work may evolve or is not fully defined at the outset. It allows the contractor to recover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. While this provides flexibility, it can offer less incentive for cost control compared to fixed-price contracts, as the government bears the risk of cost overruns. For value for money, fixed-price incentive fee (FPIF) or firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts, when feasible, often yield better price competition and cost savings for the government. However, for highly specialized or developmental work, CPFF can be necessary.
What are the primary risks associated with sole-source defense contracts like this one?
Sole-source defense contracts carry several inherent risks. The most significant is the lack of price competition, which can lead to inflated prices as the contractor faces no pressure to offer the lowest possible bid. This can result in reduced value for taxpayer money. Another risk is reduced innovation, as there's less incentive for the sole provider to develop more efficient or cost-effective methods without competitive pressure. Furthermore, the government may have less leverage in negotiating terms and conditions, potentially leading to less favorable contract clauses. Finally, reliance on a single supplier can create supply chain vulnerabilities.
What is the historical spending pattern for F-15 aircraft manufacturing and related services by the Department of the Air Force?
Historical spending on F-15 aircraft manufacturing and sustainment by the Department of the Air Force has been substantial over several decades, reflecting the platform's long service life and ongoing modernization efforts. While specific figures for 'RAPID RESPONSE DELIVERY ORDER' type contracts are not readily available in public databases, the overall F-15 program has seen billions of dollars in investment for new production, upgrades (like the F-15EX Eagle II), and sustainment. Spending fluctuates based on production runs, upgrade cycles, and readiness requirements. This $125 million order represents a portion of that ongoing investment in the F-15 fleet.
What are the potential implications of this contract on the broader aerospace manufacturing market and competition?
This specific sole-source delivery order for F-15 aircraft manufacturing has limited direct implications on the broader aerospace manufacturing market's competitive landscape. It primarily reinforces Boeing's established position as a key supplier for this specific platform. However, the broader trend of sole-source or limited-competition awards in major defense programs can indirectly impact market dynamics by concentrating work with incumbent prime contractors, potentially making it harder for new entrants or smaller firms to gain a foothold in certain segments of the defense aerospace supply chain.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 6200 JS 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: $219,741,261
Exercised Options: $219,741,261
Current Obligation: $125,432,752
Actual Outlays: $190,252
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 7
Total Subaward Amount: $917,575
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: FA863417D2696
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2027-07-31
Current End Date: 2027-09-21
Potential End Date: 2027-09-21 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-12-17
More Contracts from THE Boeing Company
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (Department of Defense)
- International Space Station — $22.4B (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 200112!000108!9700!ZD60 !ballistic Missile Defense ORG. !HQ000601C0001 !A!N!*!N! !20001222!20080930!848025649!848025649!009256819!n!the Boeing Company !3370 E Miraloma AVE !anaheim !ca!92806!37000!089!01!huntsville !madison !alabama !+000383571022!n!n!000000000000!ad93!rdte/Other Defense-Adv Tech DEV !S1 !services !1caa!ballistic Missile Defense SYS !541710!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !U!R!2!001!B! !Z!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $18.8B (Department of Defense)
- USN P-8A FRP II Long Lead Material — $18.1B (Department of Defense)
- 200512!010860!2100!w56hzv!tacom - Warren !w56hzv05c0724 !A!N! !Y! ! !20050923!20141231!016544780!016544780!009256819!n!the Boeing Company !J S Mcdonnell Blvd !saint Louis !mo!63166!65000!510!29!st. Louis !ST. Louis (city) !missouri !+000219245691!n!n!000000000000!az15!rdte/Other Research&development-Eng/Manuf Devel !S1 !services !301 !FCS !541330!E! !1! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !d!u!u!1!001!n!1a!z!y!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! TAS::21 2040::TAS — $12.7B (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)