DoD's $40.7M contract for aircraft parts awarded to Flight Safety Defense Corporation, spanning 9 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $40,730,921 ($40.7M)

Contractor: Flightsafety Defense Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-26

End Date: 2015-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,291 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Place of Performance

Location: ENGLEWOOD, ARAPAHOE County, COLORADO, 80112

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $40.7 million to FLIGHTSAFETY DEFENSE CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract's long duration suggests a sustained need for these aircraft parts. 2. A single award over a significant period may indicate limited market alternatives or a strategic partnership. 3. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. The award was made after excluding other sources, warranting scrutiny of the justification. 5. The contract's value is substantial, requiring careful monitoring of delivery and quality. 6. The geographic location of the contractor in Colorado might influence logistics and regional economic impact.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific details on the aircraft parts procured and their market prices. The $40.7 million over nine years averages to approximately $4.5 million annually, which could be reasonable for specialized defense components. However, the absence of a clear per-unit cost comparison or benchmark against similar contracts makes a definitive value-for-money assessment difficult. Further analysis would require understanding the criticality and uniqueness of the parts supplied.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This indicates that while competition was initially considered, specific reasons led to excluding certain sources. The exact number of bidders considered and the rationale for exclusion are critical to understanding the competitive landscape. A limited competition scenario can sometimes lead to higher prices if viable alternatives are not fully explored.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium if the exclusion of sources limited the number of competitive bids, potentially reducing price discovery.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense units relying on the supplied aircraft parts for operational readiness. Services delivered include the manufacturing and supply of critical aircraft components. The geographic impact is primarily centered around the contractor's location in Colorado and the DoD units receiving the parts. Workforce implications include jobs supported at Flight Safety Defense Corporation and potentially its supply chain partners.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'after exclusion of sources' clause requires careful review to ensure fair competition was not unduly restricted.
Lack of detailed per-unit cost data hinders a robust value assessment.
The long contract duration could lead to price escalation if not managed effectively.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical parts could pose supply chain risks.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government.
A long-term contract can ensure a stable supply of necessary parts.
The contractor, Flight Safety Defense Corporation, likely possesses specialized expertise in aircraft parts manufacturing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing' sector, a critical component of the broader aerospace and defense industry. This sector is characterized by high technological demands, stringent quality control, and often long product lifecycles. Spending in this area is directly tied to military readiness and modernization efforts. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other DoD contracts for similar aircraft components or maintenance services.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the award was made to Flight Safety Defense Corporation, a larger entity, and there is no explicit mention of small business set-asides. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist within the contractor's supply chain, but this is not guaranteed or specified in the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless significant subcontracting occurs.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor performance, quality, and compliance. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including delivery schedules and specifications. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases, though detailed performance metrics may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Maintenance and Repair
Aerospace Manufacturing
Defense Procurement
Military Logistics
Aircraft Parts Supply Chain

Risk Flags

Limited Competition Justification
Long-Term Contract Duration
Lack of Detailed Cost Breakdown
Potential for Price Escalation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $40.7 million to FLIGHTSAFETY DEFENSE CORPORATION. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FLIGHTSAFETY DEFENSE CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $40.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-26. End: 2015-09-30.

What is the specific justification for excluding other sources in this 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award?

The justification for excluding other sources is a critical piece of information missing from the provided data. Typically, such exclusions are based on factors like proprietary technology, unique capabilities, urgent and compelling needs where only one source can reasonably fulfill the requirement, or specific government property being available only from a particular source. Without the official justification document (often a Justification and Approval or J&A), it's impossible to definitively assess whether the exclusion was warranted and if it potentially limited competition to the detriment of taxpayer value. This warrants further investigation into the contract's procurement history.

How does the $40.7 million contract value compare to similar aircraft parts procurements by the DoD?

Comparing the $40.7 million contract value requires context regarding the specific types and quantities of aircraft parts procured. If these are highly specialized, low-volume components for advanced military aircraft, the value might be reasonable. However, if they are more common parts, this value could be on the higher end. Benchmarking against other DoD contracts for similar parts, considering factors like quantity, specifications, and contract duration, would be necessary. The nine-year duration suggests a long-term supply agreement, which can sometimes offer better unit pricing through economies of scale, but also carries risks of price escalation if not managed.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to assess Flight Safety Defense Corporation's performance under this contract?

Key performance indicators for this contract would likely revolve around on-time delivery, quality acceptance rates (minimizing defects), adherence to technical specifications, and potentially cost control within the firm fixed-price framework. The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) would be responsible for monitoring these KPIs. While specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided data, typical metrics for aircraft parts contracts include defect rates below a certain threshold (e.g., 1%), delivery schedules met with high accuracy (e.g., 95% on-time), and compliance with all contractual technical requirements. Performance reviews would inform future contract decisions.

What is the historical spending pattern for this specific type of aircraft part or for Flight Safety Defense Corporation with the DoD?

Analyzing historical spending patterns is crucial for understanding the context of this $40.7 million award. If Flight Safety Defense Corporation has consistently received similar contracts over many years, it suggests a strong, established relationship and potentially a lack of viable alternatives. Conversely, if this is a new or significantly larger award compared to previous contracts, it might indicate a change in requirements or a shift in procurement strategy. Examining prior contract values, durations, and competition levels for these parts or from this contractor would reveal trends in spending and potential cost efficiencies or inefficiencies over time.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source or limited-source award for critical aircraft parts?

Sole-source or limited-source awards for critical aircraft parts carry several risks. Firstly, reduced competition can lead to higher prices than might be achieved in a fully competitive environment, impacting taxpayer value. Secondly, there's a risk of complacency from the contractor, potentially leading to decreased innovation or quality over time, as the incentive to outperform competitors is diminished. Thirdly, supply chain vulnerability increases; if the sole or limited source experiences production issues, the government may face significant disruptions in obtaining essential parts, impacting operational readiness. Robust oversight and clear performance standards are essential to mitigate these risks.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: MODIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT › MODIFICATION OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Address: 10770 E BRIARWOOD AVE STE, CENTENNIAL, CO, 80112

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: F3365701D2078

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline