DoD's $25.6M F/A-18D TOFT and Brief/Debrief Station contract awarded to CAE USA INC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,636,460 ($25.6M)

Contractor: CAE USA Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-02-29

End Date: 2016-11-13

Contract Duration: 1,719 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: F/A-18D TOFT AND BRIEF/DEBRIEF STATION

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, TARRANT County, TEXAS, 76011

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.6 million to CAE USA INC. for work described as: F/A-18D TOFT AND BRIEF/DEBRIEF STATION Key points: 1. The contract value of $25.6 million represents a significant investment in aviation training systems. 2. The sole-source award suggests limited market availability or specialized capabilities required. 3. The contract duration of 1719 days indicates a long-term need for these training services. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide predictable spending. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags potential for larger prime contractors to dominate. 6. The contract's focus on training systems highlights the importance of simulation in military readiness.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this specific training station is challenging without comparable sole-source contracts. However, the total contract value of $25.6 million over approximately 4.7 years suggests an annual expenditure of roughly $5.4 million. This figure needs to be assessed against the cost of developing and maintaining similar advanced training simulators, considering the specialized nature of the F/A-18D platform.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, indicating that the Department of Defense identified CAE USA INC. as the only source capable of meeting the specific requirements for the F/A-18D TOFT and Brief/Debrief Station. This limits the opportunity for competitive bidding and may result in higher prices than if multiple vendors had competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can mean taxpayers may not be getting the best possible price due to the lack of competition, potentially leading to less efficient use of funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. Navy and Marine Corps pilots and aircrew who will utilize the training system. The contract delivers advanced simulation capabilities for the F/A-18D aircraft, enhancing pilot proficiency and mission readiness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated at the military installation where the training station is deployed. The contract supports specialized technical roles within CAE USA INC. and potentially its subcontractors for the development and maintenance of the simulator.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to specialized nature of the training system.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Long contract duration suggests a sustained need and commitment to pilot training.
Focus on advanced simulation technology can improve training effectiveness and safety.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense industry is characterized by high barriers to entry, significant R&D investment, and a reliance on specialized technologies. Training systems, particularly for complex military aircraft like the F/A-18D, represent a niche but critical segment. Spending in this area is driven by the need for advanced simulation to reduce flight hours, enhance safety, and improve combat readiness. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other advanced flight simulators for military platforms, which can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on complexity and features.

Small Business Impact

The contract does not indicate any small business set-aside provisions, suggesting it was not specifically targeted for small business participation. This implies that the prime contractor, CAE USA INC., is likely a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to foster small business growth within the defense supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), responsible for ensuring contract compliance and performance. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of financial oversight by setting a ceiling on costs. Transparency regarding the sole-source justification and performance metrics would be key to assessing accountability.

Related Government Programs

F/A-18 Hornet Training Systems
Advanced Flight Simulators
Military Aviation Training
Defense Simulation and Training

Risk Flags

Sole Source Justification
Potential for Cost Overruns
Limited Competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.6 million to CAE USA INC.. F/A-18D TOFT AND BRIEF/DEBRIEF STATION

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CAE USA 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 $25.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-02-29. End: 2016-11-13.

What is the track record of CAE USA INC. in delivering similar aviation training systems?

CAE USA INC. has a well-established reputation and extensive experience in developing and providing advanced simulation and training solutions for military and commercial aviation. They are a major player in the defense training sector, known for producing high-fidelity flight simulators, mission trainers, and integrated training systems. Their portfolio includes simulators for various aircraft platforms, often involving complex systems integration and sophisticated software. The company has a history of securing significant contracts with the Department of Defense and allied nations for training programs. Their expertise in areas like virtual reality, augmented reality, and artificial intelligence further positions them to deliver cutting-edge training solutions. The award of this F/A-18D contract likely reflects their proven capability and existing relationship with the U.S. Navy/Marine Corps.

How does the $25.6 million contract value compare to other F/A-18 training systems?

Direct comparison of the $25.6 million contract value for the F/A-18D TOFT and Brief/Debrief Station to other F/A-18 training systems is challenging without specific details on the scope and capabilities of those other systems. However, the figure represents a substantial investment for a single training capability. Advanced flight simulators, especially those for complex military platforms, can vary significantly in cost. Factors such as the level of fidelity, the inclusion of motion systems, visual systems, instructor operator stations, and integrated brief/debrief functionalities all influence the price. Sole-source awards, as in this case, can also lead to higher prices than competitively bid systems. Generally, such systems can range from several million dollars for basic trainers to tens or even hundreds of millions for full-mission simulators with extensive capabilities.

What are the primary risks associated with this sole-source contract?

The primary risk associated with this sole-source contract is the potential for inflated costs due to the lack of competitive bidding. Without competing offers, the government has less leverage to negotiate the lowest possible price. Another risk is vendor lock-in; if CAE USA INC. is the sole provider of this specific training technology, the government may be dependent on them for future upgrades, maintenance, and support, potentially at premium prices. There's also a risk related to performance if the specialized nature of the sole-source justification means fewer alternative solutions exist should the contractor underperform or face financial difficulties. Ensuring robust contract oversight and performance metrics becomes crucial to mitigate these risks.

How effective is simulation training compared to actual flight hours for F/A-18 pilots?

Simulation training is highly effective and increasingly crucial for F/A-18 pilot proficiency and readiness, often complementing rather than entirely replacing actual flight hours. Advanced simulators like the F/A-18D TOFT and Brief/Debrief Station allow pilots to practice a wide range of scenarios, including dangerous or complex maneuvers, emergency procedures, and combat situations, in a safe and cost-effective environment. This reduces the wear and tear on actual aircraft, lowers fuel consumption, and minimizes the risks associated with training in high-risk situations. Furthermore, simulators provide consistent training experiences and detailed performance feedback that can be difficult to replicate in the cockpit. While real flight hours are essential for developing a pilot's feel for the aircraft and its systems in actual conditions, simulation training significantly enhances training depth, frequency, and overall pilot competency.

What is the historical spending trend for F/A-18 training systems by the Department of Defense?

Historical spending on F/A-18 training systems by the Department of Defense has been substantial and ongoing, reflecting the long service life of the F/A-18 platform and the continuous need for pilot training and readiness. Over the years, the DoD has invested heavily in various generations of F/A-18 simulators, ranging from basic trainers to full-mission simulators with advanced capabilities. Spending fluctuates based on modernization programs, fleet size, operational tempo, and the introduction of new training technologies. Contracts for simulators, upgrades, maintenance, and associated services represent a significant portion of the overall F/A-18 program costs. While specific aggregate historical spending figures for F/A-18 training systems are not readily available in this dataset, the consistent presence of such contracts indicates a sustained budgetary allocation for maintaining pilot proficiency.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: L3 Technologies, Inc. (UEI: 008898884)

Address: 2200 ARLINGTON DOWNS RD, ARLINGTON, TX, 76011

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: $25,972,627

Exercised Options: $25,636,460

Current Obligation: $25,636,460

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 67

Total Subaward Amount: $7,276,235

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline