Boeing awarded $35.9M contract for NRE DEPOT STANDUP IGF, with no competition
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $35,930,236 ($35.9M)
Contractor: THE Boeing Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2018-03-01
End Date: 2020-04-01
Contract Duration: 762 days
Daily Burn Rate: $47.2K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: NRE DEPOT STANDUP IGF::OT::IGF
Place of Performance
Location: SAINT LOUIS, SAINT LOUIS County, MISSOURI, 63134
State: Missouri Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $35.9 million to THE BOEING COMPANY for work described as: NRE DEPOT STANDUP IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single, large defense contractor, raising questions about competitive pricing. 2. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) can incentivize cost overruns. 3. Performance period of over two years suggests a significant scope of work. 4. The contract falls under Aircraft Manufacturing, a sector with substantial government investment. 5. No small business set-aside was indicated, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The contract's value of $35.9 million for aircraft manufacturing support services appears substantial. Without comparable contract data or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while common for R&D or uncertain scope, carries inherent risks of cost escalation. Benchmarking against similar depot standup or aircraft modification contracts would be necessary for a more robust evaluation.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning the Department of the Navy did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities, or for urgent requirements. The lack of competition means that pricing was not tested against market alternatives, potentially leading to a higher cost for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers do not benefit from the price reductions typically achieved through competitive bidding. This can result in a less efficient use of public funds.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Navy, receiving support for its IGF (Integrated Ground Facility) operations. Services likely include maintenance, repair, and logistical support for aircraft or related systems at a depot. The geographic impact is centered in Missouri, where the depot is located. The contract supports a large, established defense contractor, likely maintaining existing jobs within that company.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits price competition.
- CPFF contract type may lead to cost overruns.
- Lack of transparency in pricing due to no competition.
- Potential for contractor to not aggressively manage costs.
Positive Signals
- Contract awarded to a known entity (Boeing) with established capabilities.
- Contract addresses a specific need for depot standup.
- Fixed fee component in CPFF provides some cost certainty.
Sector Analysis
The aircraft manufacturing sector is a critical component of the defense industrial base, characterized by high barriers to entry and significant government reliance. Contracts in this space often involve complex systems and long production cycles. The total federal spending in Aircraft Manufacturing (NAICS 336411) is substantial, with this contract representing a small fraction of the overall sector's activity. Benchmarking would require comparing this to other depot support or modification contracts within the aerospace and defense industry.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, it is unlikely to directly benefit the small business ecosystem unless Boeing voluntarily includes them in its supply chain.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. The Inspector General for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of publicly available detailed cost information.
Related Government Programs
- Aircraft Depot Maintenance
- Naval Aviation Support Contracts
- Defense Logistics Agency Contracts
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Cost-plus contract type
- Lack of competition
- Potential for cost overruns
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, aircraft-manufacturing, nre-depot-standup-igf, the-boeing-company, sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee, missouri, delivery-order, large-contractor
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $35.9 million to THE BOEING COMPANY. NRE DEPOT STANDUP IGF::OT::IGF
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 Navy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $35.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2018-03-01. End: 2020-04-01.
What is the specific nature of the 'NRE DEPOT STANDUP IGF' services being procured?
The acronym 'NRE DEPOT STANDUP IGF' likely refers to Non-Recurring Engineering (NRE) activities related to establishing or upgrading an Integrated Ground Facility (IGF) at a depot. This could encompass a range of services such as facility design, equipment installation, process development, initial testing, and training necessary to bring a new or significantly modified ground support capability online for aircraft maintenance or operations. The specific details would be found within the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), which is not provided here but would outline the precise deliverables, technical requirements, and performance standards.
Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?
Sole-source awards are typically justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or when there is a compelling urgency. For this contract, the Department of the Navy would have had to document a justification, potentially citing unique capabilities held by The Boeing Company, proprietary technology, or a critical need that precluded a competitive process. Without access to the Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition (JOFOC), the precise reason remains speculative but would be based on regulatory exceptions.
How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type compare to other pricing arrangements for similar services?
The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type is often used when the scope of work is not well-defined or involves research and development, allowing the contractor to be reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPFF offers less cost certainty for the government as costs can exceed initial estimates. However, it provides more flexibility than FFP when requirements are likely to change. Other arrangements like Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF) or Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) introduce performance incentives, which are absent in a standard CPFF, potentially leading to less motivation for efficiency.
What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source CPFF contract for depot standup operations?
A sole-source CPFF contract for depot standup operations presents several risks. Firstly, the lack of competition means the government cannot leverage market forces to ensure the best possible price. Secondly, the CPFF structure, while reimbursing costs, can reduce the contractor's incentive to control expenses rigorously, as the government bears the brunt of cost overruns, only capped by the fee. This combination increases the likelihood of the final cost exceeding initial projections. Furthermore, without competitive pressure, there's a risk of complacency in performance or innovation. Effective government oversight and robust cost monitoring are crucial to mitigate these risks.
What is Boeing's track record with similar depot support or aircraft manufacturing contracts for the Department of Defense?
The Boeing Company has an extensive and long-standing track record of performing complex aircraft manufacturing, sustainment, and depot-level support services for the Department of Defense across various branches. They are a primary contractor for numerous major military aircraft platforms. While specific performance details for contracts like 'NRE DEPOT STANDUP IGF' are not publicly detailed in this summary, Boeing's history includes managing large-scale programs, complex logistics, and specialized maintenance. Their experience suggests a high level of technical capability, though like any large contractor, past performance reviews and contract closeouts would provide a more granular assessment.
How does the $35.9 million award compare to historical spending on similar depot standup or aircraft manufacturing support by the Navy?
Without specific data on comparable 'depot standup' contracts or detailed breakdowns of the services included in this $35.9 million award, a direct comparison to historical Navy spending is challenging. However, the figure represents a significant investment. The Navy, like other military branches, relies heavily on contractors for depot-level maintenance and modernization of its vast aircraft fleet. Annual spending on aircraft sustainment and modification can run into billions of dollars. This particular contract's value should be assessed against the scope and duration defined in its Statement of Work and compared to other contracts for similar specialized support functions rather than broad aircraft manufacturing.
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: $35,930,236
Exercised Options: $35,930,236
Current Obligation: $35,930,236
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 8
Total Subaward Amount: $1,062,865
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: N0001918D0001
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2018-03-01
Current End Date: 2020-04-01
Potential End Date: 2020-04-01 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-08-04
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)