Navy awards $101M for aircraft engines, with General Electric as sole source
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $10,101,651 ($10.1M)
Contractor: General Electric Company
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2025-01-01
End Date: 2026-06-30
Contract Duration: 545 days
Daily Burn Rate: $18.5K/day
Competition Type: NOT COMPETED
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: F414 - CIP, USN RDT&E
Place of Performance
Location: LYNN, ESSEX County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01905
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $10.1 million to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY for work described as: F414 - CIP, USN RDT&E Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single supplier, raising questions about price competitiveness. 2. The contract type, Cost Plus Fixed Fee, may incentivize cost overruns. 3. Long duration suggests a critical, long-term need for these engine parts. 4. Focus on R&D and Engineering indicates investment in future capabilities. 5. Geographic concentration in Massachusetts for manufacturing. 6. No small business set-aside, potentially limiting broader economic participation.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
Benchmarking the value of this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns. However, the sole-source nature and the absence of competitive pressure suggest potential for higher-than-market pricing. Comparing this to other sole-source engine procurements would be necessary for a more precise assessment, but the lack of competition is a primary concern for value for money.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one bidder, General Electric Company, was solicited. This approach bypasses the competitive bidding process, which typically drives down prices and fosters innovation. The lack of competition here means the government did not explore alternative suppliers or potentially more cost-effective solutions.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may be paying a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without multiple offers, there is less assurance that the negotiated price represents the best possible value.
Public Impact
The U.S. Navy benefits from the continued supply of critical aircraft engines for its fleet. Services delivered include the manufacturing and supply of aircraft engines and parts. Geographic impact is concentrated in Massachusetts, supporting local industry and jobs. Workforce implications include employment for skilled labor in advanced manufacturing and engineering within the aerospace sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher costs.
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract structure can incentivize higher spending if not closely managed.
- Lack of small business participation may limit broader economic benefits.
- Long contract duration requires sustained oversight to ensure performance and cost control.
Positive Signals
- Award to a known, established supplier like General Electric suggests reliability and expertise.
- Focus on R&D and Engineering indicates investment in advanced technology and future capabilities.
- Contract supports critical defense needs for the U.S. Navy's operational readiness.
Sector Analysis
The aerospace manufacturing sector, specifically aircraft engine production, is highly specialized and dominated by a few large players. General Electric is a major incumbent in this market. This contract falls within the broader Defense Industrial Base, supporting critical military aviation components. Spending in this sub-sector is often characterized by long-term development cycles and high barriers to entry, making competitive procurements challenging.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not competed with a small business set-aside. Given the specialized nature of aircraft engine manufacturing, it is likely that only a few large, established companies possess the necessary capabilities. There is no indication of subcontracting plans specifically targeting small businesses within this award, which could limit opportunities for smaller firms in the supply chain.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Given the sole-source nature and Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, rigorous oversight of cost, performance, and schedule will be crucial. Transparency may be limited due to the lack of competitive proposals, but contract performance reviews and audits by the agency should provide accountability.
Related Government Programs
- Navy Aircraft Engine Procurement
- Defense R&D Contracts
- Aerospace Manufacturing Contracts
- General Electric Defense Contracts
Risk Flags
- Sole Source Award
- Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contract Type
- Lack of Competition
- Potential for Cost Overruns
Tags
defense, department-of-the-navy, aircraft-engine-manufacturing, sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee, research-and-development, massachusetts, general-electric, navy-aviation, large-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $10.1 million to GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY. F414 - CIP, USN RDT&E
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GENERAL ELECTRIC 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 $10.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2025-01-01. End: 2026-06-30.
What is General Electric's track record with sole-source defense contracts, particularly for aircraft engines?
General Electric Company has a long history of supplying aircraft engines to the U.S. military, often through sole-source or limited competition awards due to the highly specialized and proprietary nature of their technology. Their track record includes numerous contracts for various Navy and Air Force platforms. While this provides a degree of assurance regarding technical capability and production capacity, sole-source awards inherently lack the price discovery mechanisms of full and open competition. Historical data on GE's sole-source contracts would need to be analyzed to assess whether pricing has been consistently reasonable compared to competitive benchmarks or internal cost estimates, and to identify any patterns of cost overruns or performance issues that may require enhanced oversight.
How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type typically perform in terms of cost control compared to other contract types for R&D?
Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are often used for research and development (R&D) efforts where the scope of work is not well-defined, making it difficult to establish a firm fixed price. In a CPFF contract, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. While the fee is fixed, the total cost is not, meaning the government bears the risk of cost overruns. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF generally offers less incentive for the contractor to control costs, as they are reimbursed for actual expenses. However, it provides flexibility for evolving R&D requirements. Effective oversight, detailed cost tracking, and clear performance metrics are essential to mitigate the risk of cost escalation inherent in CPFF agreements for R&D.
What are the risks associated with a sole-source award for critical defense components like aircraft engines?
The primary risk of a sole-source award for critical defense components like aircraft engines is the lack of competitive pressure, which can lead to inflated prices and reduced value for taxpayer money. Without competing bids, the government has less leverage to negotiate favorable terms and may end up paying more than necessary. Additionally, sole-source awards can foster complacency in the contractor, potentially leading to decreased attention to cost control or innovation. There's also a strategic risk if the sole-source supplier faces production issues, financial instability, or geopolitical challenges, as there are no readily available alternative suppliers to ensure continuity of supply for essential military assets.
What is the typical market size and competitive landscape for aircraft engine manufacturing for the U.S. Navy?
The market for manufacturing aircraft engines for the U.S. Navy is highly concentrated and characterized by significant barriers to entry, including immense R&D costs, complex manufacturing processes, stringent quality control requirements, and long-standing relationships with the government. Typically, only a few major aerospace manufacturers, such as General Electric and Pratt & Whitney (a division of RTX Corporation), dominate this sector. The market size is substantial, driven by the Navy's extensive fleet requirements and ongoing modernization efforts. Due to the specialized nature and high technical demands, full and open competition is often not feasible, leading to a landscape where sole-source or limited competition awards are common for specific engine types or upgrades.
How has Navy spending on aircraft engines, specifically RDT&E, trended over the past five years?
Analyzing Navy spending trends on aircraft engines, particularly Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), requires access to detailed historical budget data. Generally, RDT&E spending in this area fluctuates based on the lifecycle of existing engine programs and the development of new technologies. Periods of significant new engine development or major upgrades to existing platforms would see higher RDT&E outlays. Conversely, periods focused on sustainment and maintenance of established fleets might see RDT&E spending decrease relative to procurement or operations. Without specific data for the Navy's aircraft engine RDT&E budget over the last five years, it's difficult to provide precise figures, but it's reasonable to assume consistent investment driven by the need for advanced propulsion systems for naval aviation.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: ENGINES AND TURBINES AND COMPONENT
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED
Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 1000 WESTERN AVE, LYNN, MA, 01905
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: $11,583,614
Exercised Options: $10,101,651
Current Obligation: $10,101,651
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: N0042123G0004
IDV Type: BOA
Timeline
Start Date: 2025-01-01
Current End Date: 2026-06-30
Potential End Date: 2026-06-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-01-12
More Contracts from General Electric Company
- 200607!387702!1700!n00019!naval AIR Systems Command !N0001906C0088 !A!N! !N! ! !20060424!20090131!001408509!001408509!001367960!n!general Electric Company !1000 Western AVE !lynn !ma!01905!37490!009!25!lynn !essex !mass !+000018238000!n!n!000000000000!2840!gas Turbines and JET Engines, Acft & Comps !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !000 !NOT Discernable !336412!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!u!j!1!001!n!1a!z!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!y! ! ! !Y!1719!N00019!0001! ! — $2.4B (Department of Defense)
- Adaptive Engine Transition Program (aetp) — $2.1B (Department of Defense)
- 200608!001069!2100!w58rgz!usa Aviation and Missile Command!w58rgz06c0038 !A!N! !Y! ! !20051215!20101231!137488664!137488664!001367960!n!general Electric Company !1 Neumann WAY !cincinnati !oh!45215!15000!061!39!cincinnati !hamilton !ohio !+000177879422!n!n!000000000000!r706!logistics Support Services !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !000 !NOT Discernable !541330!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!n!j!1!001!n!1g!z!n!z! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!d!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $1.6B (Department of Defense)
- 200210!004379!1700!AA427 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001901C0147 !A!N! !N!P00001 !20020508!20031130!001408509!001408509!001367960!n!general Electric Company Inc !1000 Western AVE !lynn !ma!01910!37490!009!25!lynn !essex !mass !+000060619860!n!n!000000000000!2840!gas Turbines and JET Engines, Acft & Comps !a1b!aircraft Engines and Spares !2bjn!f414-Ge-400 !336412!E! !1! ! !C! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !d!n!j!1!001!n!1a!a!w!f! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!y! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $1.5B (Department of Defense)
- F414-GE-400 Engines — $1.2B (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)