Dayton T. Brown Inc. awarded $31.5M for aircraft parts, raising value-for-money questions due to sole-source nature

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,465,946 ($31.5M)

Contractor: Dayton T. Brown, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-05-20

End Date: 2023-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,228 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: PQL TASK ORDER

Place of Performance

Location: BOHEMIA, SUFFOLK County, NEW YORK, 11716

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.5 million to DAYTON T. BROWN, INC. for work described as: PQL TASK ORDER Key points: 1. Contract awarded via other than full and open competition, limiting price discovery. 2. Significant contract value for aircraft parts suggests critical but potentially high-cost support. 3. Long performance period (over 3 years) indicates ongoing need for these specialized parts. 4. Lack of competition may lead to above-market pricing for essential aircraft components. 5. Contractor's specialization in aircraft parts manufacturing aligns with the service requirement. 6. Geographic concentration in New York for a defense contract warrants attention.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $31.5 million for aircraft parts, awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, warrants scrutiny. Without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure can incentivize contractors to incur higher costs, as a portion of their profit is tied to the total cost. Further analysis of the fixed fee and the cost components is needed to assess true value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using 'Other Than Full and Open Competition,' indicating that only one source was solicited or available. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple vendors submitting proposals. The lack of competition means that taxpayers do not benefit from the price reductions and innovation that often arise from a competitive environment.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as there is no market pressure to drive down prices. This limits the government's ability to secure the best possible value.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from the supply of critical aircraft parts, ensuring operational readiness. The contract supports the maintenance and sustainment of military aircraft fleets. The primary geographic impact is in New York, where the contractor is located. The contract supports specialized manufacturing jobs within the aerospace sector in New York.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may result in inflated costs for taxpayers.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Sole-source award limits transparency and potential for better pricing.
Concentration of a significant defense contract in a single geographic location.

Positive Signals

Contractor specializes in aircraft parts manufacturing, indicating relevant expertise.
Long performance period suggests a sustained and critical need for the supplied parts.
Awarded by the Defense Contract Management Agency, implying oversight within the DoD.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on aircraft parts. The market for specialized aircraft components is often characterized by high barriers to entry due to technical expertise, certifications, and intellectual property. While specific market size data for this niche is not provided, the overall aerospace manufacturing industry is substantial, with significant government spending directed towards aircraft sustainment and modernization.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb: false'. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem. Given the sole-source nature and the specialized manufacturing requirement, it is unlikely that small businesses would be significantly involved as prime contractors or major subcontractors unless specifically mandated.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure necessitates rigorous financial oversight to monitor costs and ensure the fixed fee remains appropriate. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source award, but contract modifications and performance reports should be available through federal procurement databases.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
Lack of competitive bidding
Potential for above-market pricing

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.5 million to DAYTON T. BROWN, INC.. PQL TASK ORDER

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 $31.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-05-20. End: 2023-09-30.

What is the track record of Dayton T. Brown, Inc. with the Department of Defense?

Dayton T. Brown, Inc. has a history of contracts with the Department of Defense, primarily in the area of aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing. While this specific contract is for $31.5 million, their broader contract history would reveal the volume and types of awards received. Analyzing past performance, including any issues or successes, is crucial for understanding their reliability and capability. Information on past performance can often be found in federal procurement databases, though detailed qualitative assessments may be limited to internal agency evaluations or contractor past performance questionnaires.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) typically compare to market rates for similar aircraft parts?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are designed to cover the actual costs incurred by the contractor plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or involves significant uncertainty, making fixed-price contracts difficult. However, CPFF contracts can be more expensive than fixed-price contracts if not managed carefully, as the government bears the risk of cost overruns. Benchmarking CPFF pricing against fixed-price contracts or other CPFF contracts for similar parts is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns. Generally, competitive fixed-price contracts are preferred for achieving better value when requirements are well-defined.

What are the specific risks associated with awarding aircraft parts contracts on a sole-source basis?

The primary risk of sole-source awards for aircraft parts is the lack of price competition, which can lead to significantly higher costs for the government compared to a competitive procurement. This reduces the government's leverage to negotiate favorable terms and prices. Additionally, it can stifle innovation and limit the pool of potential suppliers in the long run. Without competition, there's also a reduced incentive for the sole-source provider to improve efficiency or offer cost savings. This can be particularly concerning for critical components where sustained supply and cost-effectiveness are paramount for operational readiness.

How does the $31.5 million contract value compare to historical spending on aircraft parts by the Department of Defense?

The $31.5 million awarded to Dayton T. Brown, Inc. represents a significant investment in aircraft parts. To contextualize this, one would need to examine the Department of Defense's overall annual spending on aircraft parts and sustainment. The DoD procures billions of dollars worth of parts annually across various platforms. This specific contract's value should be compared against the average value of similar sole-source or competitively awarded contracts for comparable aircraft components. Without broader spending data, it's difficult to definitively state if this is high or low relative to the total DoD budget for such items, but it indicates a substantial requirement for specific parts.

What are the implications of the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code for this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336413, 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing,' signifies that Dayton T. Brown, Inc. is engaged in the production of components and accessories for aircraft that are not elsewhere classified. This includes parts like landing gear, airframes, engines, propellers, and other specialized equipment. This classification suggests the contract is for highly specific, potentially custom-manufactured or complex parts critical to aircraft operation and maintenance, rather than standardized off-the-shelf items. It also implies a specialized manufacturing capability is required from the contractor.

What is the significance of the contract award date (2020-05-20) and end date (2023-09-30) in assessing its value?

The award date of May 20, 2020, and the end date of September 30, 2023, indicate a performance period of approximately 3 years and 4 months. This extended duration suggests a long-term need for the aircraft parts being supplied. For a sole-source contract, a longer performance period can exacerbate the risk of paying above-market prices over time. It also implies a stable, ongoing requirement from the agency. Assessing the value requires looking at the pricing throughout this period, especially considering potential inflation or changes in market conditions that might not be captured effectively in a sole-source arrangement.

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: $33,432,502

Exercised Options: $33,432,502

Current Obligation: $31,465,946

Actual Outlays: $1,846,635

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