DoD awards $41.5M for VH-92A flight training device site evaluation to Lockheed Martin

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $41,471,669 ($41.5M)

Contractor: Lockheed Martin Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-05-31

End Date: 2025-11-01

Contract Duration: 1,250 days

Daily Burn Rate: $33.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: VH-92A FLIGHT TRAINING DEVICE - SITE EVALUATION

Place of Performance

Location: STRATFORD, FAIRFIELD County, CONNECTICUT, 06614

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $41.5 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION for work described as: VH-92A FLIGHT TRAINING DEVICE - SITE EVALUATION Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. The contract duration extends over two years, suggesting a significant training requirement. 3. The award is a delivery order under an existing contract, indicating a continuation of services. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336413 points to specialized aircraft equipment manufacturing. 5. The contract's fixed-price nature aims to control costs for the government. 6. The primary contractor, Lockheed Martin, is a major defense industry player.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $41.5 million for a flight training device site evaluation appears substantial. Without specific benchmarks for similar site evaluations or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, given the sole-source nature of the award, there is a potential risk of inflated pricing compared to a competitively bid contract. The fixed-price structure provides some cost certainty, but the absence of competition is a key factor in evaluating its overall value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one contractor, Lockheed Martin Corporation, was solicited. This approach bypasses the competitive bidding process, which typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. The rationale for a sole-source award often involves unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or existing contractor relationships, but it inherently reduces the government's leverage in negotiating price.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not benefit from the cost savings that typically arise from a competitive bidding environment. This can lead to higher overall expenditures for the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Navy pilots and aircrew who will receive advanced training on the VH-92A presidential helicopter. The contract supports the development and readiness of specialized flight training capabilities for critical national security missions. The geographic impact is primarily focused on the site where the training device will be evaluated and potentially deployed. This contract has implications for the specialized workforce involved in developing, maintaining, and operating advanced aviation training systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
Potential for cost overruns if not closely managed due to lack of competition.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical training infrastructure.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Award to a major defense contractor with established expertise.
Delivery order under an existing contract suggests streamlined process.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense sector is characterized by high R&D costs, long product development cycles, and significant government procurement. Contracts for training devices are crucial for maintaining pilot proficiency and operational readiness. The VH-92A program itself represents a significant investment in modernizing presidential airlift capabilities. Spending in this sub-sector often involves specialized manufacturing and complex systems integration, with major players like Lockheed Martin dominating.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to involve a small business set-aside. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, the direct impact on small businesses is likely minimal unless they are subcontractors. The subcontracting opportunities, if any, would be determined by Lockheed Martin's procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and financial management regulations. The specific agency, the Department of the Navy, would be responsible for monitoring performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and managing payments. Transparency may be limited due to the sole-source nature, but contract modifications and performance reports would be subject to internal review and potentially Inspector General oversight if issues arise.

Related Government Programs

VH-92A Presidential Helicopter Program
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Training Systems
Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may lead to higher costs.
Potential for schedule delays if site issues are complex.
Reliance on contractor's expertise for critical evaluation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $41.5 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION. VH-92A FLIGHT TRAINING DEVICE - SITE EVALUATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $41.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-05-31. End: 2025-11-01.

What is the specific nature of the 'site evaluation' for the VH-92A flight training device?

The 'site evaluation' likely refers to the process of assessing and approving the location where the VH-92A flight training device will be installed, operated, and maintained. This could involve evaluating factors such as physical space requirements, power and cooling infrastructure, network connectivity, security protocols, and accessibility for training personnel. The evaluation ensures that the chosen site can adequately support the technical and operational needs of the training simulator, contributing to its effective deployment and utilization for pilot training.

How does the sole-source nature of this award impact potential cost savings for the government compared to a competitive bid?

Sole-source awards inherently limit cost savings because the government does not benefit from the competitive pressure that drives down prices. In a competitive bidding process, multiple contractors vie for the contract, often submitting their best possible pricing to win the award. Without this competition, the government is reliant on the single solicited contractor's proposed price, which may not reflect the lowest achievable cost. This can lead to higher expenditures for taxpayers, as the government may end up paying a premium for the goods or services.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) likely being used to measure the success of this contract?

Key performance indicators for this contract would likely focus on the successful completion of the site evaluation within the defined timeline and budget. Specific metrics could include the timely delivery of evaluation reports, the accuracy and thoroughness of the site assessments, adherence to all security and environmental requirements during the evaluation, and the final recommendation for site suitability. For Lockheed Martin, meeting these deliverables would be crucial for the subsequent phases of the VH-92A training device program.

What is Lockheed Martin's track record with similar flight training device contracts?

Lockheed Martin has an extensive track record in developing and delivering complex training systems and simulators for various military platforms. They have been involved in numerous programs requiring advanced simulation technology, including fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, and other specialized military equipment. Their experience with large-scale defense contracts and sophisticated simulation development suggests a strong capability to execute this VH-92A training device site evaluation. Past performance data, if publicly available, would provide more specific insights into their success rates and any challenges encountered on similar projects.

Are there any known risks associated with the VH-92A program that could affect this contract?

The VH-92A program, like many large defense acquisition programs, can face risks related to technological maturity, schedule delays, and cost overruns. Any significant challenges or changes within the broader VH-92A program could potentially impact the scope, timeline, or requirements of this site evaluation contract. For instance, if the aircraft's development encounters unforeseen issues, the training device requirements might need to be adjusted, affecting the site evaluation process. However, the current contract is for a specific phase, and its success is primarily tied to the evaluation process itself.

How does this contract's value compare to other flight training device procurements within the Department of Defense?

Comparing the $41.5 million value of this specific VH-92A flight training device site evaluation to other similar procurements requires access to detailed contract data across the DoD. However, flight training simulators and associated site evaluations for advanced aircraft can be substantial investments, often running into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars depending on complexity and scope. Given the critical nature of presidential airlift and the advanced technology involved in the VH-92A, this contract value appears to be within the expected range for such specialized systems, though a direct comparison would necessitate a broader market analysis.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT AND STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1801 STATE RT 17 C, OWEGO, NY, 13827

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: $41,471,669

Exercised Options: $41,471,669

Current Obligation: $41,471,669

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $23,897,471

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0001919G0029

IDV Type: BOA

Timeline