Defense contract for maintenance and repair of equipment awarded to McDonnell Douglas Corp. for $36 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $49,617,832 ($49.6M)

Contractor: THE Boeing Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-04-24

End Date: 2003-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,254 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.6K/day

Competition Type: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200009!2100!000270!CA42 !VICKSBURG CONSOLILDATED CONTRACT!OSIA0198C0005 !A!*!P00015 !20000424!20030930!008384588!006265946!009256819!N!18355!MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. !5301 BOLSA !HUNTINGTON BEA !CA!92647!36000!059!06!HUNTINGTON BEACH !ORANGE !CALIFORNIA!0001!+000000140000!N!N!000000000000!J099!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !4899!3!*!*!C!B!N!Z!C !U!R!1!001!N!1A!Z!Y!Z!* !* !N!C!*!Z!Z!A!A!A!A!* !*!N!A!C!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTINGTON BEACH, ORANGE County, CALIFORNIA, 92647

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $49.6 million to THE BOEING COMPANY for work described as: 200009!2100!000270!CA42 !VICKSBURG CONSOLILDATED CONTRACT!OSIA0198C0005 !A!*!P00015 !20000424!20030930!008384588!006265946!009256819!N!18355!MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. !5301 BOLSA !HUNTINGTON BEA !CA!92647!36000!059!06!HUNTINGTON BEACH !ORA… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for maintenance and repair of equipment, indicating a need for ongoing support services. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, suggesting performance incentives were included. 3. The duration of the contract was over three years, implying a significant operational requirement. 4. The award was a follow-on to a competed action, hinting at a competitive history. 5. The contractor, McDonnell Douglas Corp., is a major aerospace and defense company. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, part of the Department of Defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $36 million over approximately three years suggests a substantial investment in equipment maintenance. Without specific details on the scope of work or the types of equipment serviced, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money effectively. However, given the Cost Plus Award Fee structure, the final cost could have varied based on performance. Comparing this to similar maintenance contracts for comparable military equipment would be necessary for a more precise assessment of pricing and value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was a 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION,' indicating that the initial award was subject to full and open competition. This suggests that multiple bidders likely participated in the original solicitation, leading to a competitive bidding process. The follow-on nature implies that the incumbent contractor, McDonnell Douglas Corp., was selected based on the results of that competition, and potentially subsequent evaluations for follow-on work.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive initial award generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces. The follow-on nature suggests that the initial competition was successful in establishing a reasonable price point for these services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army units that rely on the maintained equipment for their operations. Services delivered include maintenance and repair of equipment and miscellaneous equipment. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the operational bases or deployment areas of the Army units served. Workforce implications include employment for personnel skilled in equipment maintenance and repair, both within the contractor's organization and potentially supporting roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

  • Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can sometimes lead to higher costs if not managed tightly, as contractor profit is tied to performance metrics.
  • The specific equipment being maintained is not detailed, making it hard to assess the criticality of the service.
  • The contract ended in 2003, so current market rates and technologies may differ significantly.

Positive Signals

  • Awarded as a follow-on to a competed action, suggesting a competitive process was used initially.
  • McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now part of Boeing) is a large, established defense contractor with significant experience.
  • The contract specifies maintenance and repair of equipment, a critical function for military readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Defense sector, specifically focusing on maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services for military equipment. The MRO market within the defense industry is substantial, driven by the need to keep complex and expensive assets operational. Spending benchmarks for such services can vary widely depending on the type of equipment, its age, and the level of maintenance required. This contract represents a portion of the broader DoD spending on sustainment and logistics.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements in the provided data. As a large contract awarded to a major defense contractor, it is possible that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses exist, but this would require further investigation into the specific subcontracting plan, if any was mandated.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been primarily managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Army. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies performance monitoring to determine award fees. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract. Transparency would depend on the reporting requirements stipulated in the contract and agency policies.

Related Government Programs

  • Department of Defense Maintenance and Repair Contracts
  • Army Logistics and Sustainment Programs
  • Aerospace and Defense Contractor Services
  • Equipment Maintenance Services

Risk Flags

  • Contract duration exceeds one year.
  • Contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee.
  • Follow-on to a competed action.

Tags

defense, department-of-the-army, maintenance-and-repair, equipment-services, cost-plus-award-fee, competed, follow-on, mcdonnell-douglas-corp, california, services

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $49.6 million to THE BOEING COMPANY. 200009!2100!000270!CA42 !VICKSBURG CONSOLILDATED CONTRACT!OSIA0198C0005 !A!*!P00015 !20000424!20030930!008384588!006265946!009256819!N!18355!MCDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP. !5301 BOLSA !HUNTINGTON BEA !CA!92647!36000!059!06!HUNTINGTON BEACH !ORANGE !CALIFORNIA!0001!+000000140000!N!N!000000000000!J099!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !4899!3!*!*!C!B!N!Z!C !U!R!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE BOEING COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $49.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-04-24. End: 2003-09-30.

What specific types of equipment were covered under this maintenance and repair contract?

The provided data indicates the contract covered 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT.' However, it does not specify the exact types or categories of equipment. This could range from vehicles and communication systems to specialized machinery or components. Understanding the specific equipment would allow for a more accurate assessment of the contract's criticality, the complexity of the services required, and potential comparisons to industry standards for similar equipment maintenance.

How did the final awarded cost compare to the initial estimated cost, given the Cost Plus Award Fee structure?

The data shows an awarded amount of $36,000,000. The contract type is 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' (CPFF). CPFF contracts reimburse the contractor for allowable costs plus a fixed fee that is adjusted based on performance against specific criteria. Without knowing the initial estimated cost or the performance evaluation outcomes, it's impossible to determine how the final cost compared to the estimate or the target fee. The 'award fee' component means the final amount paid could be higher or lower than a baseline fee, depending on how well McDonnell Douglas met or exceeded performance expectations.

What were the key performance metrics used to determine the award fee for this contract?

The specific performance metrics used to determine the award fee are not detailed in the provided data. For a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, these metrics are typically defined in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Objectives (SOO). Common metrics for maintenance and repair contracts include on-time delivery of services, quality of repairs (e.g., defect rates), equipment uptime achieved, response times to service calls, and adherence to safety protocols. The contracting officer would evaluate performance against these metrics to assign an award fee.

What was the competitive landscape for this specific type of maintenance and repair service at the time of the original solicitation?

The data states this contract was a 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION,' implying the original contract was awarded after a competitive process. This suggests that there were likely multiple capable contractors vying for the work. The specific competitive landscape would depend on the nature of the equipment and the geographic location of the service. For broad categories of equipment maintenance, the market typically includes large defense contractors like McDonnell Douglas, as well as specialized MRO providers. The 'full-and-open' nature of the initial competition indicates a robust market response.

What is the historical spending trend for similar equipment maintenance and repair services by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending on equipment maintenance and repair by the Department of the Army is substantial and spans numerous contract vehicles and categories. The Army, like other branches of the DoD, relies heavily on contractors for sustainment of its vast inventory of equipment, ranging from tactical vehicles and aircraft to IT systems and weapons platforms. Annual spending on maintenance and repair services often runs into the billions of dollars across the entire department. This specific $36 million contract, awarded between 2000 and 2003, represents a single instance within that broader spending pattern, likely focused on a particular set of equipment or a specific operational command.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Address: 5301 BOLSA, HUNTINGTON BEA, CA

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2000-04-24

Current End Date: 2003-09-30

Potential End Date: 2003-09-30 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2008-11-21

More Contracts from THE Boeing Company

View all THE Boeing Company federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending