DoD's $6.4M Engineering and Technical Support Contract Awarded to Rockwell Collins, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,423,120 ($6.4M)

Contractor: Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-04-22

End Date: 2026-04-29

Contract Duration: 372 days

Daily Burn Rate: $17.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: CEDAR RAPIDS, LINN County, IOWA, 52498

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $6.4 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. for work described as: ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis, indicating potential for cost overruns. 2. Sole-source award raises questions about competition and potential for better pricing. 3. Limited competition may reduce the incentive for the contractor to optimize performance. 4. Contract duration of 372 days suggests a focused, short-term need for services. 5. The contract falls under the 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' NAICS code. 6. Awarded by the Department of the Navy, indicating a specific military application.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $6.4 million contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable service contracts. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for complex or uncertain scopes, can lead to higher final costs than fixed-price contracts if not managed diligently. The lack of competition further complicates a direct value assessment, as there's no market pressure to drive down costs. Without detailed breakdowns of labor categories, hours, and overhead rates, it's difficult to ascertain if the fixed fee is reasonable for the anticipated effort.

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 potential contractors. This approach is typically used when only one contractor possesses the unique capabilities, technology, or security clearances required for the specific service. The absence of a competitive bidding process means that taxpayers did not benefit from the price discovery that typically occurs when multiple firms vie for a contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit the government's ability to secure the best possible price through competition, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers. It also bypasses opportunities to foster a broader base of qualified suppliers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Navy, which will receive essential engineering and technical support. Services delivered are likely critical for the maintenance, upgrade, or development of specific naval communication systems. The geographic impact is centered around the operational needs of the Navy, potentially involving naval bases or deployed units. Workforce implications may include specialized engineers and technicians employed by Rockwell Collins, Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing and innovation.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure carries inherent risk of cost escalation if not tightly managed.
Lack of transparency in the sole-source justification could mask potential alternatives.
Limited public information on specific deliverables makes performance assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Rockwell Collins is a known entity in defense contracting, suggesting established capabilities.
The contract is for engineering and technical support, likely addressing critical operational needs.
The fixed fee component of the CPFF contract provides some cost certainty for the contractor's profit.
The contract is awarded by a major defense agency (Department of the Navy), implying adherence to rigorous standards.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense sector is characterized by high R&D investment, complex supply chains, and significant government procurement. Contracts for engineering and technical support are crucial for maintaining the technological edge of military assets. Rockwell Collins, Inc. operates within this ecosystem, providing specialized services. Comparable spending in this sub-sector often involves system integration, software development, and lifecycle support for advanced platforms. The market size for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by continuous modernization efforts.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'ss': false and 'sb': false. The prime contractor, Rockwell Collins, Inc., is a large corporation. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract are likely limited unless they are part of Rockwell Collins' broader supply chain or are engaged in separate, smaller contracts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. As a sole-source award, the justification and negotiation process would be subject to internal review and potentially audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature, but contract performance and financial reporting would be monitored. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Contracts
Department of Defense Engineering Services
Communications Systems Support Contracts
Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Contracts
Sole-Source Defense Procurements

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract structure poses risk of cost escalation.
Lack of detailed public information on deliverables hinders performance assessment.
Ambiguous status code 'IA' requires further clarification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $6.4 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.. ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-04-22. End: 2026-04-29.

What is Rockwell Collins, Inc.'s track record with the Department of the Navy for similar engineering and technical support contracts?

Rockwell Collins, Inc. (now part of Collins Aerospace, a Raytheon Technologies company) has a long-standing history of providing a wide array of products and services to the Department of Defense, including the Navy. Their track record typically involves complex systems integration, avionics, communication systems, and related engineering support. For the Navy specifically, they have been involved in numerous contracts related to aircraft, ships, and command and control systems. Analyzing past performance on similar sole-source or competitively awarded contracts would reveal their historical success rates, cost performance, and adherence to schedules. Without access to specific contract history databases for this exact type of support, a definitive assessment is difficult, but their general profile suggests a capable, albeit large, incumbent provider.

How does the $6.4 million value compare to typical engineering and technical support contracts for similar naval systems?

The $6.4 million value for this specific engineering and technical support contract is moderate within the context of large defense procurements. However, its 'typicality' depends heavily on the scope of work. If it pertains to sustainment engineering for a specific component or system upgrade, it could be standard. If it involves foundational research or development for a new capability, it might be considered on the lower end. Benchmarking requires comparing it against contracts with similar NAICS codes (334290 - Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing, though the service aspect is key), contract types (CPFF), and agencies (Navy). Given the sole-source nature and the specific technical support context, it's plausible that this amount reflects a niche requirement or a specific phase of a larger program where competition was deemed impractical or unnecessary at this stage.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for engineering services?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) contract are twofold. Firstly, the sole-source nature eliminates competitive pressure, which can lead to inflated pricing and reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or operate with maximum efficiency. The government may not be getting the best value for its money. Secondly, the CPFF structure, while providing flexibility for uncertain scopes, carries the risk of cost overruns. The contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing their profit. If costs escalate beyond initial estimates, the total contract value increases, potentially exceeding the government's budget. Effective oversight, detailed cost tracking, and robust negotiation are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What does the 'IA' status code signify for this contract, and does it indicate any specific program effectiveness concerns?

The status code 'IA' is not a standard federal procurement status code widely documented in public databases like FPDS. It might be an internal agency code specific to the Department of the Navy or a particular system used for tracking. Without clarification on its meaning, it's impossible to definitively link it to program effectiveness concerns. Standard codes often relate to contract actions (e.g., award, modification, termination) or funding types. If 'IA' relates to 'In Process Award' or similar, it simply indicates the stage of the contract. If it signifies a specific type of service or a particular program, further context would be needed. It is recommended to consult agency-specific documentation or the contracting officer for clarification on internal status codes.

How has the Department of the Navy's spending on 'Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing' (NAICS 334290) evolved over the past five years?

Analyzing the Department of the Navy's spending evolution under NAICS code 334290 requires access to historical federal procurement data. Generally, spending in this category can fluctuate based on modernization priorities, technological advancements, and specific platform needs. For communications equipment, this might include upgrades to shipboard systems, tactical radios, satellite communication terminals, or related components. A trend analysis would likely show periods of increased investment during major program starts or upgrades, and potentially lower spending during sustainment phases or when alternative technologies are adopted. Without specific data queries, it's difficult to provide precise figures, but the Navy's consistent need for advanced communication capabilities suggests sustained, albeit variable, spending in this area.

What are the implications of awarding a $6.4M contract to Rockwell Collins, Inc. (Collins Aerospace) for engineering support in Iowa (SN: IOWA)?

Awarding a $6.4 million contract to Rockwell Collins, Inc. (now Collins Aerospace) for engineering and technical support, with the contract associated with Iowa (SN: IOWA), has several implications. Firstly, it signifies continued investment in the state's aerospace and defense industrial base, potentially supporting local jobs and economic activity related to Collins Aerospace's presence there. Secondly, it highlights the critical role of specialized engineering firms in supporting complex defense systems. The specific nature of the support (related to communications equipment) suggests a focus on maintaining or enhancing the Navy's technological capabilities. For taxpayers, the implications revolve around ensuring value for money, especially given the sole-source and CPFF nature of the award, necessitating robust oversight to ensure efficient use of funds.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Other Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: QUALITY CONTROL, TEST, INSPECTION › EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS TESTING

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

Parent Company: RTX Corp

Address: 400 COLLINS RD NE, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA, 52498

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: $11,759,021

Exercised Options: $6,423,120

Current Obligation: $6,423,120

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0042121G0005

IDV Type: BOA

Timeline