Lockheed Martin awarded $11.1M for operational training devices, extending contract duration significantly

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,143,727 ($11.1M)

Contractor: Loral Fairchild Systems Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-01-17

End Date: 2011-08-13

Contract Duration: 3,495 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200205!00H147!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133902C0069 !A!N! !N! !20020117!20051231!038155727!018485636!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION !300 ROBBINS LANE !SYOSSET !NY!11791!72554!059!36!SYOSSET !NASSAU !NEW YORK !+000007578029!N!N!000000000000!6930!OPERATIONAL TRAINING DEVICES !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !334220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !D!N!J!1!001!N!1A!Z!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: GREENLAWN, SUFFOLK County, NEW YORK, 11740

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.1 million to LORAL FAIRCHILD SYSTEMS INC for work described as: 200205!00H147!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133902C0069 !A!N! !N! !20020117!20051231!038155727!018485636!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION !300 ROBBINS LANE !SYOSSET !NY!11791!72554!059!36!SYOSSET !NASSA… Key points: 1. Contract value of $11.1M for operational training devices. 2. Awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation, a major defense contractor. 3. Contract duration extended from initial award date to August 2011. 4. The contract is for operational training devices, a critical component for military readiness. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 334220, related to broadcasting equipment manufacturing. 6. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, indicating a defined cost for the services. 7. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $11.1 million for operational training devices appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized military equipment. However, without specific benchmarks for similar training devices or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty for the government, but the lack of competition could have led to a higher price than a competed contract might have achieved. Further analysis of the specific capabilities and technological sophistication of these training devices would be needed for a more definitive valuation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. This approach is often used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or when urgency dictates a rapid award. However, the absence of a competitive bidding process limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions and potentially secure more favorable pricing through market forces. The justification for this sole-source award would need to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure it aligns with federal procurement regulations and serves the best interests of the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A sole-source award means taxpayers may not have received the benefit of competitive pricing, potentially leading to a higher overall cost for the training devices.

Public Impact

Military personnel, particularly those in naval aviation, will benefit from enhanced training capabilities. The contract delivers operational training devices, crucial for maintaining combat readiness and proficiency. The geographic impact is primarily tied to the Naval Air Warfare Center Training, likely within the United States. The contract supports jobs within Lockheed Martin Corporation and its supply chain, contributing to the aerospace and defense industry workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have resulted in a higher price than a competed contract.
The extended duration of the contract could indicate potential scope creep or evolving requirements.
The NAICS code 334220 (Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing) seems unusual for 'Operational Training Devices', suggesting a potential misclassification or a very specific niche.

Positive Signals

Awarded to a major defense contractor with a track record in aerospace and training systems.
Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract addresses a critical need for operational training devices, supporting military readiness.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector, particularly within training and simulation, is a significant market. Companies like Lockheed Martin are key players, developing advanced systems to meet evolving military requirements. Spending in this area is driven by the need for realistic and cost-effective training solutions that can replicate complex operational environments. Benchmarks for similar training devices can vary widely based on technological sophistication, fidelity, and the specific platforms they simulate.

Small Business Impact

As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, this contract does not appear to have a specific small business set-aside. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. This could limit opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific procurement, although Lockheed Martin may engage small businesses through its broader supply chain for other components or services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contract management agencies, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified goods or services at an agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the potential classification of specific training device details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems
Defense Training and Simulation Contracts
Lockheed Martin Defense Contracts
Operational Training Systems Procurement

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
Unusual NAICS code assignment requires clarification.
Extended contract duration may lead to obsolescence or cost management issues.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.1 million to LORAL FAIRCHILD SYSTEMS INC. 200205!00H147!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133902C0069 !A!N! !N! !20020117!20051231!038155727!018485636!834951691!N!LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION !300 ROBBINS LANE !SYOSSET !NY!11791!72554!059!36!SYOSSET !NASSAU !NEW YORK !+000007578029!N!N!000000000000!6930!OPERATIONAL TRAINING DEVICES !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !334220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LORAL FAIRCHILD SYSTEMS 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 $11.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-01-17. End: 2011-08-13.

What specific capabilities do these 'Operational Training Devices' offer, and how do they compare to commercially available training simulators?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'OPERATIONAL TRAINING DEVICES' under NAICS code 334220. This code typically relates to broadcasting equipment manufacturing, which seems incongruous with training devices. Without further details, it's difficult to ascertain the specific capabilities. However, operational training devices for the military often involve high-fidelity simulators that replicate aircraft, vehicles, or combat scenarios, incorporating advanced visual, auditory, and motion systems. These are generally far more complex and expensive than commercial simulators due to stringent military requirements for realism, durability, and integration with other systems. A comparison would require detailed specifications of the devices procured under this contract, which are not publicly available in this dataset.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED', indicating a sole-source award. Federal procurement regulations allow for sole-source awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or when urgency precludes competition. For a contract of this nature, the justification might stem from unique technological capabilities held by Lockheed Martin, proprietary aspects of their training systems, or a critical and immediate need that could not be met through a lengthy competitive process. A formal justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval for Other Than Full and Open Competition) would typically be required and should outline the specific reasons why competition was not feasible or practicable.

How does the extended contract performance period (from 2002 to 2011) impact the overall cost-effectiveness and relevance of the training devices?

The original award date is 2002-01-17, with an end date of 2011-08-13, resulting in a performance period of over 9 years. Such an extended duration can have mixed implications for cost-effectiveness and relevance. On one hand, it allows for a longer period to amortize development costs and potentially achieve economies of scale if production volumes increase. It also provides continuity in training capabilities. However, technology, especially in simulation and training, evolves rapidly. A training device designed in the early 2000s might become technologically outdated or less relevant for training on newer platforms or evolving threats by 2011. This extended period could also indicate potential scope creep or evolving requirements, which might have led to cost increases beyond the initial $11.1 million if not managed carefully under the firm fixed-price structure.

What is the significance of the NAICS code 334220 (Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing) for a contract described as 'Operational Training Devices'?

The assignment of NAICS code 334220 to a contract for 'Operational Training Devices' is unusual and warrants further investigation. This code typically covers establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communication equipment. It's possible that the training devices incorporate specific communication technologies, or that the classification is an error, or reflects a niche application where broadcasting technology is adapted for simulation. Without more context, it's difficult to definitively link the two. It could suggest that the training devices involve complex electronic components, signal processing, or communication simulation aspects that align tangentially with the broadcasting equipment sector, or it might be a misclassification that obscures the true nature of the procurement.

What is Lockheed Martin's track record with similar operational training device contracts for the U.S. Navy or other military branches?

Lockheed Martin Corporation is a major defense contractor with extensive experience in developing and producing advanced training and simulation systems for various military branches, including the U.S. Navy. They have a long history of providing sophisticated simulators for aircraft (like the F-35, F-16, C-130), naval vessels, and other platforms. Their portfolio often includes integrated training solutions that combine hardware, software, and support services. Given their established presence in the defense sector and specialization in complex systems, it is highly probable that they possess the necessary expertise and infrastructure to fulfill contracts for operational training devices. However, specific details on past performance metrics, cost overruns, or successes related to similar contracts would require deeper research into contract databases and performance reports.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Communications Equipment Manufacturing › Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 300 ROBBINS LANE, SYOSSET, NY, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline