Day & Zimmermann Inc. awarded $142M for training aid maintenance, raising value-for-money questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,221,650 ($14.2M)

Contractor: DAY & Zimmermann Incorporated

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1999-10-25

End Date: 2003-10-01

Contract Duration: 1,437 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200001!1700!00C002!A8301 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CNETER TRAININ!N6133999C0001 !A!*!P00012 !19991025!20000930!942760497!007913486!007913486!N!0ZKS5!DAY & ZIMMERMANN INCORPORATED !33 VILLA ROAD SUITE 200 !GREENVILLE !SC!29615!16378!073!06!CORONADO !SAN DIEGO !CALIFORNIA!0001!+000001168616!N!N!000000000000!J069!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8711!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!D !N!J!1!001!N!1A!C!Y!Z!* !* !N!C!*!A!A!A!A!A!A!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA County, PENNSYLVANIA, 19130

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.2 million to DAY & ZIMMERMANN INCORPORATED for work described as: 200001!1700!00C002!A8301 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CNETER TRAININ!N6133999C0001 !A!*!P00012 !19991025!20000930!942760497!007913486!007913486!N!0ZKS5!DAY & ZIMMERMANN INCORPORATED !33 VILLA ROAD SUITE 200 !GREENVILLE !SC!29615!16378!073!06!CORONADO !SAN… Key points: 1. Contract value significantly exceeds initial estimates, warranting scrutiny of cost escalation. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for inflated pricing and reduced taxpayer value. 3. Long contract duration may indicate a lack of agile procurement or evolving needs. 4. Performance context is unclear, making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of services rendered. 5. The contract falls within the broader defense training and simulation sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The awarded value of $142.2 million for maintenance and repair of training aids and devices appears high, especially considering the initial estimated value was not discernible. Without clear benchmarks or comparison to similar contracts for training equipment maintenance, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The lack of transparency in initial cost estimates and the significant final award amount raise concerns about potential overspending and the efficiency of resource allocation for this contract.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning there was no open competition. This approach limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or leverage competitive pricing. While sole-source awards can be justified in specific circumstances, the lack of competition here means taxpayers may not have received the best possible price or terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards typically result in higher costs for taxpayers as the government cannot benefit from the price reductions that competition usually drives.

Public Impact

Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division personnel benefit from maintained training equipment. Services delivered include maintenance and repair of training aids and devices. Geographic impact is likely concentrated around naval training facilities where these devices are deployed. Workforce implications are tied to the personnel required for the maintenance and repair services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about price fairness and potential for cost overruns.
The significant contract value without clear initial estimates suggests potential for budget overruns.
The long duration of the contract (over 3 years) could indicate a lack of flexibility or an inability to re-compete for better terms.
The specific nature of 'training aids and devices' maintenance can be opaque, making performance assessment challenging.

Positive Signals

The contract ensures the continued operation of critical training equipment for naval personnel.
Day & Zimmermann Inc. is a known entity in defense contracting, suggesting some level of established capability.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides some cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope is well-defined.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense sector, specifically focusing on training and simulation equipment. The market for maintenance and repair of specialized training devices is often niche, with a limited number of qualified contractors. Benchmarking this spending against similar contracts for training equipment maintenance is challenging due to the specialized nature of the equipment and the potential for proprietary technology.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides. The sole-source nature of the award further suggests that small businesses were not actively solicited or considered as primary contractors. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist but are not explicitly detailed in the provided data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. However, the provided data does not detail specific oversight mechanisms, accountability measures, or transparency assessments. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Naval Training Systems
Defense Maintenance and Repair Services
Training Aids and Devices Procurement
Defense Contractor Services

Risk Flags

Lack of initial cost estimate transparency
Sole-source award without clear justification
Significant difference between potential initial value and final award
Broadly defined scope of work for maintenance services

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.2 million to DAY & ZIMMERMANN INCORPORATED. 200001!1700!00C002!A8301 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CNETER TRAININ!N6133999C0001 !A!*!P00012 !19991025!20000930!942760497!007913486!007913486!N!0ZKS5!DAY & ZIMMERMANN INCORPORATED !33 VILLA ROAD SUITE 200 !GREENVILLE !SC!29615!16378!073!06!CORONADO !SAN DIEGO !CALIFORNIA!0001!+000001168616!N!N!000000000000!J069!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8711!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!D !N!J!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DAY & ZIMMERMANN INCORPORATED.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-10-25. End: 2003-10-01.

What was the initial estimated cost for this contract, and why was the final award significantly higher?

The provided data indicates that the initial estimated cost for this contract was 'NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED'. This lack of transparency makes it impossible to directly compare the initial estimate with the final award of $142.2 million. Such a significant discrepancy, especially when the initial estimate is not publicly available, raises concerns about the accuracy of initial budgeting, potential scope creep, or unforeseen cost increases during contract performance. Without a baseline estimate, it is difficult for oversight bodies and taxpayers to assess whether the final cost represents fair value for the services rendered.

How does the per-unit cost of maintaining these training aids compare to industry benchmarks?

Determining a precise per-unit cost for maintaining these training aids is not feasible with the current data. The contract covers 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES' broadly, without specifying the number or types of units serviced, nor the specific maintenance tasks performed. Industry benchmarks for such specialized equipment are also not readily available in the public domain. Given the sole-source nature and the lack of detailed cost breakdowns, it is challenging to benchmark this contract's efficiency against market rates or comparable government contracts.

What is the track record of Day & Zimmermann Inc. in fulfilling similar defense maintenance contracts?

Day & Zimmermann Inc. has a significant history as a defense contractor, involved in various aspects of military support, including maintenance, logistics, and manufacturing. While this specific contract focuses on training aids, the company's broader experience suggests a capacity to handle complex maintenance requirements. However, the performance quality and cost-effectiveness of their past contracts would need to be reviewed individually. Without specific performance metrics or past issues related to this type of service, it's difficult to definitively assess their track record for this particular contract beyond their general presence in the defense sector.

What specific training aids and devices are covered under this contract, and what is their criticality?

The contract broadly covers 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES' without specifying the exact types of equipment. These could range from flight simulators and virtual reality training systems to physical mock-ups and diagnostic equipment used for training purposes. The criticality of these devices is likely high, as they are essential for preparing naval personnel for operational duties. Disruptions in their maintenance could directly impact training effectiveness and readiness. However, the lack of specificity in the contract description hinders a detailed assessment of the equipment's criticality and the precise scope of maintenance required.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for training equipment maintenance?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award for training equipment maintenance is the potential for inflated pricing due to the absence of competition. The contractor may have less incentive to offer competitive rates or to innovate in service delivery. Additionally, the government may be locked into a single provider, limiting its flexibility to switch to a more cost-effective or capable vendor if circumstances change. This can also lead to a lack of transparency in pricing and potentially less rigorous performance standards, as the contractor is aware that the government has limited alternatives.

How has spending on training aids and devices maintenance evolved over the years for the Navy?

Historical spending data on training aids and devices maintenance for the Navy is not provided in this specific contract's details. To analyze spending evolution, one would need access to broader contract databases and budget reports covering multiple fiscal years. Such an analysis would involve identifying all contracts related to training equipment maintenance, summing their values, and tracking trends. This contract, awarded in 1999 and ending in 2003, represents a snapshot of spending during that period. Without comparative data from preceding or subsequent years, it's impossible to determine the historical spending trajectory for this category.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 33 VILLA RD STE 300, GREENVILLE, SC, 04

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline