DoD's $18.2M contract for navigation systems awarded to Rockwell Collins without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,244,211 ($18.2M)

Contractor: Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-07-11

End Date: 2027-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,115 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: CAAS V10.0F2 / 10.4

Place of Performance

Location: CEDAR RAPIDS, LINN County, IOWA, 52498

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.2 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. for work described as: CAAS V10.0F2 / 10.4 Key points: 1. The contract value of $18.2 million represents a significant investment in specialized aeronautical and nautical systems. 2. Awarded to a single vendor, the lack of competition raises questions about potential price overruns and limited market engagement. 3. The duration of the contract (over 3 years) suggests a need for sustained support or development in this critical area. 4. The 'IA' (Iowa) state code indicates the primary performance location, potentially impacting regional economic benefits. 5. The cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type allows for cost reimbursement plus a predetermined profit, which can incentivize cost control but also carries inherent risks. 6. The absence of small business subcontracting goals suggests this contract may not directly benefit smaller enterprises in the supply chain.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $18.2 million contract is challenging without specific details on the systems procured and their intended use. However, the 'NOT COMPETED' award type inherently limits the ability to assess if the pricing reflects competitive market rates. Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently. Without comparative data on similar navigation system procurements, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents excellent or fair value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities, technology, or when urgency dictates a rapid award. The lack of competition means that taxpayers did not benefit from the price discovery and potential cost savings that typically arise from a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may have paid a premium for these navigation systems, as there was no market pressure to drive down costs. This also limits opportunities for other qualified businesses to compete for government contracts.

Public Impact

U.S. Special Operations Command personnel will benefit from enhanced search, detection, and navigation capabilities. The contract supports the manufacturing and potential sustainment of critical aeronautical and nautical system instruments. The primary performance location in Iowa may see indirect economic benefits through employment and local supply chains. The contract ensures the availability of specialized equipment for critical national security missions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
Sole-source award limits opportunities for other vendors and potential innovation.
Specific performance metrics and deliverables are not detailed, making outcome assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Award to a known entity (Rockwell Collins) suggests a degree of confidence in their capabilities.
The contract duration indicates a commitment to ensuring operational readiness for critical systems.
The specific nature of the systems (search, detection, navigation) points to a focus on essential operational needs.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense sector, particularly the segment focused on navigation and guidance systems, is characterized by high technological barriers to entry and significant R&D investment. This contract falls within the 'Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing' industry. Spending in this area is critical for military readiness and technological superiority. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to ascertain without more specific details on the system's complexity and intended application, but such specialized instruments often represent substantial investments.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not competed and has no indication of small business set-aside or subcontracting goals. Therefore, it is unlikely to directly benefit small businesses through prime contract awards or mandated subcontracting opportunities. The focus appears to be on a large, established prime contractor, potentially limiting the integration of smaller, innovative firms into this specific procurement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and program management offices, with potential involvement from the U.S. Special Operations Command's internal oversight bodies. As a sole-source award, scrutiny on the justification for this approach and the reasonableness of costs would be paramount. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature, and specific Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on the nature of any potential fraud, waste, or abuse identified.

Related Government Programs

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Aviation
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR)
Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC)
Army Contracting Command

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
Lack of transparency in justification
Potential for higher costs due to lack of competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.2 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.. CAAS V10.0F2 / 10.4

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (U.S. Special Operations Command).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-07-11. End: 2027-07-31.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to Rockwell Collins?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded under 'NOT COMPETED,' which is a sole-source justification. Common reasons for sole-source awards include unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling needs where only one source can reasonably fulfill the requirement, or when a previous contract was awarded competitively and the follow-on is restricted to the original awardee due to specific circumstances like technology compatibility or warranty requirements. Without further documentation from the agency, the precise justification remains unspecified, but it implies that the Department of Defense determined Rockwell Collins was the only viable source for these particular navigation systems at the time of award.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract type compare to other contract types in terms of risk and potential value for this type of procurement?

The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) contract type is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined, or when there is significant uncertainty in the costs involved, such as in research and development or complex system integration. It reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred and pays a fixed fee (profit) that is negotiated at the outset. This structure incentivizes the contractor to control costs to maximize their profit margin, as the fee is fixed regardless of the final cost. However, it carries risks for the government, including potential cost overruns if initial estimates are inaccurate and the need for robust oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF can offer more flexibility but may result in higher overall costs for the government if not managed effectively. For specialized navigation systems, where technical challenges can be unpredictable, CPFF might be deemed appropriate, but it necessitates strong government oversight.

What are the potential implications of this contract on the broader market for aeronautical and nautical navigation systems?

A sole-source award to Rockwell Collins for $18.2 million in navigation systems could have several implications for the broader market. Firstly, it signals a lack of competition for this specific requirement, potentially discouraging other vendors from investing in developing similar capabilities if they perceive the market as closed off. Secondly, it reinforces Rockwell Collins' position as a key supplier in this niche, potentially leading to market concentration. Thirdly, it means that alternative solutions or innovations from other companies were not considered for this particular procurement, which could slow down the overall pace of innovation in the sector if competition is a primary driver. However, if Rockwell Collins possesses truly unique and essential technology, the award might be justified to ensure operational capability.

What is Rockwell Collins' track record with similar government contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Rockwell Collins (now part of Collins Aerospace, a Raytheon Technologies company) has a long and extensive history of providing avionics, communication, navigation, and simulation systems to the Department of Defense and other government agencies. They are a well-established prime contractor with numerous awards across various platforms and programs. Their track record generally indicates a strong capability in delivering complex aerospace and defense technologies. Specific performance details for past contracts, including adherence to schedule, budget, and technical specifications, would require a deeper dive into contract databases and performance reports. However, their consistent presence as a major supplier suggests a generally positive relationship and capability in meeting DoD requirements.

Are there any historical spending patterns or trends associated with navigation system procurements by the U.S. Special Operations Command?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for navigation systems by U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) would require access to detailed contract databases and budget allocations over several fiscal years. Generally, SOCOM procures highly specialized and often cutting-edge equipment tailored to unique operational requirements, which can lead to higher per-unit costs compared to conventional military procurements. Spending trends are likely influenced by evolving threats, technological advancements, and specific mission needs. Without specific historical data for SOCOM's navigation system procurements, it's difficult to establish a precise trend. However, it's reasonable to assume a consistent need for advanced navigation capabilities, potentially leading to recurring investments in upgrades, new systems, and sustainment, often through sole-source or limited-competition awards due to the specialized nature of the equipment.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: H9224119R0003

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp

Address: 400 COLLINS RD NE, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA, 52498

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: $20,445,654

Exercised Options: $20,445,654

Current Obligation: $18,244,211

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 1

Total Subaward Amount: $294,398

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: H9224120D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline