DoD awards $11M task order to Greenfield Engineering for avionics support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,987,311 ($11.0M)

Contractor: Greenfield Engineering Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-12-11

End Date: 2026-12-10

Contract Duration: 729 days

Daily Burn Rate: $15.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: MISSIONS SYSTEMS GROUP SUPPORT TASK ORDER FOR AVIONICS GROUP.

Place of Performance

Location: PATUXENT RIVER, SAINT MARYS County, MARYLAND, 20670

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.0 million to GREENFIELD ENGINEERING CORPORATION for work described as: MISSIONS SYSTEMS GROUP SUPPORT TASK ORDER FOR AVIONICS GROUP. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical avionics systems, indicating a need for specialized engineering expertise. 2. The contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) allows for flexibility but requires careful cost monitoring. 3. Competition was conducted after exclusion of sources, suggesting a potentially limited but justified bidding process. 4. The duration of 729 days points to a medium-term engagement for ongoing support. 5. The contract is a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, typical for agile government needs. 6. The awardee, Greenfield Engineering Corporation, is positioned to provide essential technical services to the Navy.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.99 million for approximately two years of service appears reasonable for specialized engineering support. Benchmarking against similar avionics support contracts would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure necessitates close oversight to ensure costs remain aligned with the fixed fee component and the overall value delivered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, specific sources were excluded, potentially due to unique qualifications or prior performance. The number of bidders is not specified, but the exclusion suggests a narrowed field, which could impact price negotiation.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the broadest possible price discovery, though the exclusion of sources might have been justified by specific technical requirements.

Public Impact

The U.S. Department of the Navy benefits from specialized engineering services for its avionics systems. This contract supports the maintenance and enhancement of critical military aviation technology. The primary impact is on the operational readiness and effectiveness of naval aviation assets. Work is likely concentrated in Maryland, the stated place of performance.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contracts can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
The 'exclusion of sources' in competition warrants scrutiny to ensure fairness and necessity.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes assessing effectiveness challenging.

Positive Signals

Award to an established engineering firm suggests a degree of reliability.
The task order is for a defined period, allowing for reassessment of needs.
Focus on avionics indicates support for a critical defense capability.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense sector is characterized by complex, high-value contracts requiring specialized engineering and technical expertise. The market includes a mix of large prime contractors and niche providers. This contract for avionics support fits within the broader engineering services sub-sector, which is crucial for maintaining and upgrading sophisticated military platforms. Spending in this area is driven by defense modernization efforts and the need for continuous technological advancement.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside criterion for this specific task order. Therefore, the direct impact on small businesses through set-asides is likely minimal. However, the prime contractor, Greenfield Engineering Corporation, may engage small businesses as subcontractors, contributing indirectly to the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure, requiring detailed reporting and justification of costs. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though specific performance details may be sensitive. The Inspector General for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction over potential fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Contracts
Avionics Systems Engineering Support
Defense Engineering Services
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
Aerospace Engineering Services

Risk Flags

Limited competition may reduce price competitiveness.
CPFF contract type requires diligent cost oversight.
Specific justification for exclusion of sources needs verification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.0 million to GREENFIELD ENGINEERING CORPORATION. MISSIONS SYSTEMS GROUP SUPPORT TASK ORDER FOR AVIONICS GROUP.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GREENFIELD ENGINEERING 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 $11.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-12-11. End: 2026-12-10.

What is Greenfield Engineering Corporation's track record with the Department of the Navy, particularly in avionics support?

Assessing Greenfield Engineering Corporation's track record requires a deeper dive into their contract history with the Department of the Navy. Specifically, examining past performance evaluations, any documented issues or commendations on similar avionics support task orders, and their overall experience in the aerospace engineering domain would be crucial. A review of their financial stability and capacity to handle a contract of this magnitude is also important. Without specific past performance data, it's difficult to definitively assess their reliability for this particular task order, though their selection implies they met minimum requirements.

How does the $10.99 million value compare to similar avionics support contracts awarded by the Navy?

Benchmarking this $10.99 million task order against similar avionics support contracts requires access to a broader dataset of recent Navy procurements. Factors such as the specific avionics systems involved, the scope of engineering services (e.g., design, testing, maintenance, upgrades), the duration of the contract, and the complexity of the platforms supported all influence pricing. Generally, specialized engineering services for advanced military systems command significant investment. A preliminary assessment suggests the value is within a plausible range for a two-year engagement, but a detailed comparison with contracts of identical scope and complexity would be necessary for a definitive value-for-money assessment.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for avionics support?

The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for avionics support revolve around cost control and contractor incentive. For the government, the risk is that the contractor may incur higher costs than necessary, as the government bears the cost of all allowable expenses, while the contractor is guaranteed a fixed profit (the fee). This can incentivize less cost-consciousness. For the contractor, the risk lies in accurately estimating the costs to ensure the fixed fee remains profitable, especially if unforeseen technical challenges arise. Effective oversight, detailed cost tracking, and clear definition of work are critical to mitigate these risks.

How does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement method impact price discovery and potential savings?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method implies that while the competition was intended to be open to all qualified sources, certain entities were specifically excluded. This exclusion, if justified by unique capabilities or prior performance, might limit the number of bidders. A reduced number of bidders can potentially lead to less aggressive pricing compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition where numerous companies vie for the contract. The impact on price discovery depends heavily on the rationale for exclusion and the competitiveness among the remaining eligible bidders. If the excluded sources were essential for robust competition, taxpayers might not achieve the lowest possible price.

What are the potential performance implications of awarding this task order to Greenfield Engineering Corporation?

The potential performance implications hinge on Greenfield Engineering Corporation's demonstrated capabilities and past performance in supporting naval avionics systems. If the company possesses the requisite expertise, skilled personnel, and robust quality control processes, the performance is likely to be positive, contributing to the operational readiness of the targeted aircraft. Conversely, any shortcomings in their technical proficiency, resource allocation, or project management could lead to delays, suboptimal system performance, or increased costs. The CPFF contract structure provides some flexibility to adapt to performance needs, but effective government oversight is paramount to ensure desired outcomes are met.

What is the historical spending trend for similar avionics support services within the Department of the Navy?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar avionics support services within the Department of the Navy requires examining aggregated data over several fiscal years. This would involve looking at the total obligated amounts for contracts with similar Product Service Codes (like 541330 - Engineering Services) and keywords related to 'avionics,' 'aircraft systems,' and 'support services.' Trends might indicate increasing or decreasing investment in these areas, influenced by fleet modernization programs, aging aircraft sustainment needs, or shifts in defense priorities. Understanding these patterns provides context for the current $10.99 million award and helps forecast future budgetary requirements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N0042124R0007

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 20319 BEAUVUE CT, LEONARDTOWN, MD, 20650

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,386,954

Exercised Options: $17,748,047

Current Obligation: $10,987,311

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0042125D0026

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline