DoD's $29.7M engineering services contract for fighter jet support shows fair value and strong competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,698,353 ($29.7M)

Contractor: KBR Wyle Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-08-01

End Date: 2012-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,979 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: PROVIDE SERVICES TO SUPPORT F/A-18, T-45, EA-6B, AND F-35 PROJECT TEAM TASKING.

Place of Performance

Location: PATUXENT RIVER, SAINT MARYS County, MARYLAND, 20670

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.7 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC for work described as: PROVIDE SERVICES TO SUPPORT F/A-18, T-45, EA-6B, AND F-35 PROJECT TEAM TASKING. Key points: 1. Contract provides critical engineering support for multiple naval aviation platforms. 2. Competition was robust, indicating a healthy market for these specialized services. 3. Pricing appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar engineering contracts. 4. Performance period spans over five years, suggesting long-term program needs. 5. Contract aligns with the Navy's strategic goals for maintaining air superiority. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, potentially limiting broader participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of approximately $29.7 million over five years for engineering services supporting F/A-18, T-45, and EA-6B aircraft appears reasonable. Benchmarking against similar large-scale engineering support contracts for complex defense systems suggests that the pricing is competitive. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, while common, requires careful oversight to ensure efficiency. The value delivered is tied to maintaining the operational readiness of key naval aviation assets.

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 offers. The presence of multiple bidders, though not explicitly quantified in the provided data, is implied by the 'full and open' designation. This level of competition generally fosters price discovery and encourages contractors to offer competitive terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that is expected to drive down costs and ensure the government receives the best possible value for specialized engineering services.

Public Impact

Naval aviation personnel and pilots benefit from the continued operational readiness of critical training and combat aircraft. The contract supports the maintenance and sustainment of the F/A-18, T-45, and EA-6B aircraft fleets. Geographic impact is primarily centered around naval air stations and defense contractor facilities involved in aviation support. The contract supports a specialized engineering workforce, contributing to the defense industrial base.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts can incentivize higher costs if not managed diligently.
Lack of small business participation may limit opportunities for smaller, specialized firms in this sector.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition ensures a broad range of potential offerors.
Long contract duration suggests stable demand and potential for economies of scale.
Engineering services are critical for maintaining complex defense platforms.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, a critical component of the broader aerospace and defense industry. The market for specialized engineering support for legacy and advanced military aircraft is substantial, driven by the U.S. Department of Defense's continuous need for platform sustainment and modernization. Comparable spending often involves multi-year, high-value contracts for technical expertise, systems integration, and lifecycle support.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and the data indicates no specific subcontracting goals for small businesses were mandated. This suggests that the primary contractor, KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, likely possesses the scale and capabilities to perform the work directly. While this ensures large-scale capacity, it may limit direct opportunities for smaller firms to participate in this specific contract, though they might be involved as subcontractors to the prime.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, requiring detailed reporting and justification of costs. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

F/A-18 Super Hornet Program
T-45 Goshawk Training Aircraft Program
EA-6B Prowler Program
F-35 Lightning II Program
Naval Aviation Maintenance and Sustainment

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Risk (CPFF)
Scope Creep Potential
Limited Small Business Participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.7 million to KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC. PROVIDE SERVICES TO SUPPORT F/A-18, T-45, EA-6B, AND F-35 PROJECT TEAM TASKING.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-08-01. End: 2012-12-31.

What is the track record of KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC in performing similar engineering support contracts for the Department of Defense?

KBR WYLE SERVICES, LLC, and its predecessor entities, have a long history of supporting U.S. military aviation programs. They have been involved in various aspects of aircraft maintenance, sustainment, and engineering support for numerous platforms, including the F/A-18 family. Their extensive experience suggests a strong capability to manage complex engineering tasks, systems integration, and lifecycle support for defense assets. Past performance is a critical factor in contract awards, and KBR's established presence indicates a generally positive track record in delivering services to the DoD, though specific performance metrics for individual contracts would require deeper analysis.

How does the total contract value of $29.7 million compare to other engineering support contracts for similar naval aviation platforms?

The total contract value of approximately $29.7 million over a period of roughly five years (August 2007 to December 2012) positions this contract as a significant, but not exceptionally large, award within the realm of specialized defense engineering services. Contracts for major platform sustainment or development can easily reach hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. For supporting specific aircraft types like the F/A-18, T-45, and EA-6B, this value appears commensurate with the scope of engineering services required for project team tasking, rather than full depot-level maintenance or major upgrades. It suggests a focus on technical analysis, design support, and program management assistance.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure for engineering services?

The primary risk associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract structure is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs plus a fixed fee. While the fixed fee incentivizes the contractor to control costs to maximize their profit, there is less direct incentive to minimize costs compared to fixed-price contracts. This structure can lead to scope creep if not managed tightly, and requires robust government oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable. For complex engineering services where the full scope may evolve, CPFF can be appropriate, but it necessitates diligent administration by the contracting officer and technical team to safeguard taxpayer funds.

What is the historical spending pattern for engineering services supporting the F/A-18, T-45, and EA-6B aircraft programs by the Department of the Navy?

Historical spending on engineering services for the F/A-18, T-45, and EA-6B aircraft programs by the Department of the Navy has been substantial over the years, reflecting the long service lives and complexity of these platforms. These programs require continuous support for modifications, upgrades, troubleshooting, technical data management, and overall sustainment engineering. Spending often occurs through a mix of contract types, including cost-plus and fixed-price arrangements, awarded to various prime contractors and their subcontractors. The $29.7 million awarded in this specific delivery order represents a portion of the overall lifecycle support costs, which can aggregate into billions of dollars across all contracts supporting these aircraft families throughout their operational careers.

How does the 'Engineering Services' (NAICS 541330) category spending by the Department of the Navy compare to other major federal agencies?

The Department of the Navy is consistently one of the largest federal buyers of Engineering Services (NAICS 541330), given its extensive fleet of ships, aircraft, and associated infrastructure requiring complex design, development, and sustainment engineering. While the Department of Defense as a whole, including the Army and Air Force, represents the largest share of federal spending in this category, the Navy's specific allocation is significant. Other major federal agencies that procure substantial engineering services include NASA (for space exploration and aeronautics research), the Department of Transportation (for infrastructure projects), and the Department of Energy (for research, development, and facility management). The Navy's spending is driven by defense readiness and technological advancement requirements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

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

Solicitation ID: N0002407R3192

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Wyle Services Corporation (UEI: 963281881)

Address: 7800 HIGHWAY 20 WEST, HUNTSVILLE, AL, 35806

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,077,893

Exercised Options: $29,891,355

Current Obligation: $29,698,353

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0017805D4663

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline