DoD awards $18M for B-1B/B-52 technical order sustainment, with Northrop Grumman as prime

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,002,612 ($18.0M)

Contractor: Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-04-11

End Date: 2012-06-29

Contract Duration: 1,540 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: NEW REQUIREMENT FOR TECHNICAL ORDER SUSTAINMENT FOR THE B-1B AND B-52 PLATFORMS.

Place of Performance

Location: HERNDON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20171

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.0 million to NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION for work described as: NEW REQUIREMENT FOR TECHNICAL ORDER SUSTAINMENT FOR THE B-1B AND B-52 PLATFORMS. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical sustainment for aging bomber fleets, indicating ongoing investment in legacy platforms. 2. The award was made under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. A Time and Materials contract type may pose cost control challenges if not closely managed. 4. The duration of the contract (over 4 years) suggests a long-term need for these services. 5. This award falls within the Research and Development sector, specifically R&D in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences. 6. The prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, has extensive experience with these aircraft platforms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $18 million over approximately 4 years for technical order sustainment is difficult to benchmark without specific details on the scope of work. Time and Materials contracts can be prone to cost overruns if not managed diligently. The number of bids received (2) is on the lower side for a full and open competition, which might suggest less aggressive pricing than a more crowded field.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. However, only two bids were received. While competition was open, the limited number of bidders might indicate a specialized niche or high barriers to entry for potential competitors, potentially impacting price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process was utilized, but the low number of bidders could mean taxpayers did not benefit from the most aggressive pricing possible. Further analysis of the bids would be needed to confirm value for money.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force units operating the B-1B and B-52 bomber aircraft. Services delivered include the sustainment of technical orders, crucial for aircraft maintenance and operational readiness. The geographic impact is national, supporting strategic air command capabilities across various bases. Workforce implications include the need for skilled technical writers and engineers to maintain and update complex documentation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost creep due to Time and Materials contract type.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may have reduced price pressure.
Sustaining legacy systems can be more expensive than anticipated over time.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, allowing for broad participation.
Prime contractor has established expertise with the specific aircraft platforms.
Ensures continued operational readiness for critical bomber fleets.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically supporting legacy aircraft sustainment. The market for technical order management and sustainment is specialized, often dominated by original equipment manufacturers or large defense contractors with deep platform knowledge. Spending on sustainment for aging platforms like the B-1B and B-52 is a significant portion of the overall defense budget, reflecting the long service lives of these assets.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication of a small business set-aside for this contract, and the prime contractor is a large corporation. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but are not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The focus on a large, established prime contractor suggests that direct small business participation might be limited unless specifically subcontracted.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the Department of the Air Force contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be tied to contract performance metrics and deliverables. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance data may be less accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

B-1B Lancer Sustainment Programs
B-52 Stratofortress Sustainment Programs
Technical Data and Documentation Services
Aerospace Engineering and Technical Support

Risk Flags

Low bidder count in full and open competition
Use of Time and Materials contract type
Sustainment of aging aircraft platforms

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.0 million to NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION. NEW REQUIREMENT FOR TECHNICAL ORDER SUSTAINMENT FOR THE B-1B AND B-52 PLATFORMS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-04-11. End: 2012-06-29.

What is the historical spending trend for technical order sustainment for the B-1B and B-52 platforms?

Analyzing historical spending for technical order sustainment for the B-1B and B-52 platforms requires access to detailed contract databases beyond the single award provided. However, it is generally understood that sustainment costs for aging aircraft fleets represent a significant and often increasing portion of the defense budget. Factors such as obsolescence of parts, need for modernization of documentation systems, and the sheer age of the platforms contribute to rising sustainment expenditures over time. Without specific historical data for this contract vehicle or similar ones, it's difficult to establish a precise trend, but the ongoing need for such services suggests consistent, if not growing, investment.

How does the number of bidders (2) compare to similar R&D contracts for aircraft sustainment?

Receiving only two bids for a full and open competition, especially for a contract valued at $18 million, is relatively low. Similar Research and Development (R&D) contracts, particularly those involving specialized technical sustainment for major defense platforms, often see a higher number of bidders if the market is robust and accessible. A low number of bidders can suggest several possibilities: a highly specialized niche market where only a few companies possess the required expertise and security clearances; high barriers to entry (e.g., proprietary data, complex integration requirements); or potentially, that the contract terms or anticipated profitability were not attractive enough to draw more competition. Benchmarking against other similar sole-source or limited-competition awards might provide context, but for a 'full and open' award, two bidders is a point for further inquiry into market dynamics.

What are the specific risks associated with a Time and Materials (T&M) contract for technical order sustainment?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts carry inherent risks, primarily related to cost control. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M agreements reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours at specified hourly rates and for the actual cost of materials. This structure can lead to cost uncertainty and potential overruns if the scope of work is not well-defined or if the contractor's efficiency is not closely monitored. For technical order sustainment, risks include scope creep (unforeseen tasks requiring more labor hours), inefficient labor utilization, and potentially inflated material costs. Effective management requires rigorous oversight, detailed tracking of labor hours, and clear definitions of what constitutes 'time and materials' to ensure value for money and prevent uncontrolled cost escalation.

What is Northrop Grumman's track record with B-1B and B-52 sustainment and technical documentation?

Northrop Grumman has a long-standing and significant track record with both the B-1B Lancer and B-52 Stratofortress programs. As a major defense contractor, they have been involved in various aspects of these aircraft's lifecycle, including development, production, and sustainment. Their involvement often extends to integrated logistics support, systems engineering, and maintenance, which inherently includes the management and sustainment of technical orders and documentation. Given their prime contractor status on these platforms for extended periods, it is highly probable they possess extensive institutional knowledge and established processes for managing the complex technical data required for these aging, but critical, strategic assets. This deep familiarity suggests a lower performance risk compared to a less experienced contractor.

Can the $18M award be considered a good value given the limited competition?

Assessing whether the $18 million award represents 'good value' is challenging without a detailed cost-volume analysis of the bids received and a thorough understanding of the specific technical requirements. While the contract was competed 'full and open,' the receipt of only two bids raises concerns about the level of price competition achieved. If the two bidders were closely aligned in their pricing, or if one was significantly higher, the government may not have secured the most competitive price possible. Value is also determined by the quality and timeliness of the services delivered relative to cost. Given the specialized nature of technical order sustainment for these platforms and Northrop Grumman's established role, the price might be considered fair market value within that specific context, but the limited competition prevents a definitive 'good value' assessment without further data.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Scientific Research and Development Services › Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Northrop Grumman Corporation (UEI: 967356127)

Address: 12900 FEDERAL SYSTEMS PARK DR, FAIRFAX, VA, 11

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,002,612

Exercised Options: $18,002,612

Current Obligation: $18,002,612

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA822205D0008

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline