Dayton T. Brown Inc. awarded $16.9M for aircraft parts, with limited competition impacting price discovery

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,928,110 ($16.9M)

Contractor: Dayton T. Brown, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-07-17

End Date: 2023-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,475 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TRITON REMOTE QUICK LOOK

Place of Performance

Location: BOHEMIA, SUFFOLK County, NEW YORK, 11716

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.9 million to DAYTON T. BROWN, INC. for work described as: TRITON REMOTE QUICK LOOK Key points: 1. Contract value of $16.9M for aircraft parts suggests a significant need for specialized components. 2. The 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code indicates a niche but critical sector. 3. Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and reduced value for taxpayer dollars. 4. The contract duration of 1475 days (approx. 4 years) points to a long-term requirement. 5. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored. 6. The award to Dayton T. Brown, Inc. warrants a review of their past performance in similar contracts.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $16.9M contract is challenging without specific details on the aircraft parts and their criticality. However, the limited competition (sole-source) inherently suggests a potential for less favorable pricing compared to a fully competed scenario. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, while common for complex or uncertain scope work, requires diligent oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and the fixed fee is justified. Without comparable contract data, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money, but the competitive landscape is a red flag.

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 typically occurs when only one vendor possesses the necessary capabilities, technology, or proprietary information required for the specific good or service. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to solicit bids from various suppliers, potentially leading to higher prices and reduced innovation. It also means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers may not be getting the best possible price for these aircraft parts. The absence of competition removes the pressure on vendors to offer competitive bids, potentially increasing the overall cost to the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense and its operational units requiring specialized aircraft parts. The services delivered include the manufacturing and supply of 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment'. The geographic impact is primarily within New York (ST: NY, SN: NEW YORK), where the contractor is located. Workforce implications include employment opportunities at Dayton T. Brown, Inc. and potentially its suppliers within the aerospace manufacturing sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type requires robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to specialized nature of parts or technology.

Positive Signals

Contract addresses a specific and likely critical need for aircraft parts within the DoD.
Award to an established company (Dayton T. Brown, Inc.) may indicate reliability and expertise.
Long contract duration suggests a stable and predictable supply chain for essential components.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace manufacturing sector is highly specialized and capital-intensive, with stringent quality and performance requirements. This contract falls under the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' category, indicating a focus on components that are not standard airframes or engines but are crucial for aircraft operation and maintenance. The total federal spending in this sector can be substantial, driven by defense procurement and commercial aviation needs. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other sole-source or limited-competition awards for similar specialized aircraft components within the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside (SS: false, SB: false). Given the sole-source nature and the specialized industry, it's unlikely that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would be mandated unless specifically included in the contract terms by the agency. The impact on the small business ecosystem would be minimal unless Dayton T. Brown, Inc. has a history of engaging small businesses as subcontractors for such specialized work.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), as indicated by the 'sa' field. DCMA is responsible for ensuring contractors meet the terms and conditions of their contracts, including quality, delivery, and cost control, especially for CPFF contracts. Accountability measures would involve performance reviews, audits, and adherence to the contract's milestones and deliverables. Transparency is often limited in sole-source awards, but contract award data is publicly available through systems like FPDS.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Parts Procurement
Defense Logistics Agency Contracts
Aerospace Manufacturing Support
Department of Defense Supply Chain

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type
Lack of detailed justification for sole-source award
Limited transparency on specific components procured

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.9 million to DAYTON T. BROWN, INC.. TRITON REMOTE QUICK LOOK

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DAYTON T. BROWN, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-07-17. End: 2023-07-31.

What is the specific nature of the 'TRITON REMOTE QUICK LOOK' system or components being procured?

The provided data does not specify the exact nature of the 'TRITON REMOTE QUICK LOOK' system or the specific aircraft parts being procured. This designation likely refers to a particular project, subsystem, or component set critical for certain Department of Defense aircraft. Without further details, it's impossible to ascertain the technical specifications, criticality, or intended use. Understanding the 'TRITON REMOTE QUICK LOOK' would be essential for a more in-depth analysis of the contract's necessity and the justification for its sole-source award. Further investigation into DoD procurement databases or technical documentation might reveal more about this specific designation.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The justification for a sole-source award typically falls into categories such as unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling need, or lack of adequate competition. For this contract, awarded to Dayton T. Brown, Inc., the justification likely stems from the specialized nature of the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' (NAICS 336413) and potentially proprietary knowledge or manufacturing processes held by the contractor. Without the specific justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition - J&A), it's presumed that the government determined only Dayton T. Brown, Inc. could fulfill the requirement. This lack of competition is a key area for scrutiny regarding value for money.

How does Dayton T. Brown, Inc.'s past performance on similar contracts compare to industry benchmarks?

Assessing Dayton T. Brown, Inc.'s past performance requires access to detailed contract performance records, which are not fully available in the provided data. Generally, agencies evaluate past performance based on factors like quality of product/service, timeliness of delivery, cost control, and customer satisfaction. For a sole-source award, the government likely relied on existing knowledge of the contractor's capabilities. A comprehensive review would involve examining their performance history on previous DoD contracts, particularly those involving specialized aircraft components and Cost Plus Fixed Fee structures. Benchmarking would involve comparing their performance metrics (e.g., on-time delivery rates, cost variances) against industry averages for similar types of contracts and services.

What are the potential risks associated with the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for this procurement?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type, while suitable for research and development or services with uncertain scope, carries inherent risks. The primary risk is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as the government agrees to cover all allowable costs plus a predetermined fixed fee. This can lead to cost overruns if the government's oversight is not rigorous. For this $16.9M contract, the government must ensure robust monitoring of expenditures, validate the allowability and reasonableness of all costs incurred, and ensure the fixed fee adequately compensates the contractor for the effort without being excessive. Effective management and oversight are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure value for taxpayer money.

What is the historical spending trend for 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' by the Department of Defense?

The provided data focuses on a single contract and does not offer historical spending trends for the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' (NAICS 336413) sector by the Department of Defense. To analyze historical spending, one would need to query federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending.gov) for all contracts awarded under this NAICS code by the DoD over several fiscal years. This would reveal the overall market size, identify major contractors, and show fluctuations in spending that could be influenced by geopolitical events, modernization programs, or changes in operational tempo. Such analysis is crucial for contextualizing the $16.9M award within the broader DoD procurement landscape.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N0042118R0065

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1175 CHURCH STREET, BOHEMIA, NY, 11716

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,185,693

Exercised Options: $20,185,693

Current Obligation: $16,928,110

Actual Outlays: $382,651

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0042119D0029

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline