Boeing awarded $14.3M for electrical signal instruments, a sole-source contract with a 498-day duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,272,885 ($14.3M)

Contractor: THE Boeing Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-12-16

End Date: 2027-04-28

Contract Duration: 498 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: NGATS DO 0007

Place of Performance

Location: SAINT LOUIS, SAINT LOUIS County, MISSOURI, 63134

State: Missouri Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.3 million to THE BOEING COMPANY for work described as: NGATS DO 0007 Key points: 1. Contract awarded to a single, established provider, raising questions about competitive pricing. 2. The fixed-price nature of the contract offers some cost certainty, but the lack of competition limits potential savings. 3. Performance is scheduled to conclude in April 2027, indicating a medium-term commitment. 4. The contract falls under the Instrument Manufacturing NAICS code, suggesting a focus on specialized equipment. 5. The Department of the Army is the primary recipient, highlighting defense-related procurement needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $14.3 million for electrical signal measuring and testing instruments appears within a reasonable range for specialized defense equipment. However, without competitive bidding, it is difficult to benchmark against market rates or determine if the best possible value was achieved. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost predictability for the government, but the absence of competition means potential cost savings from a bidding process are foregone. Further analysis would require comparing this award to similar sole-source contracts for comparable equipment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, The Boeing Company, was solicited. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple companies vying for the contract. While sole-source awards can be justified in specific circumstances, such as when only one vendor possesses the required unique capabilities or when urgency dictates, they generally lead to less price discovery and potentially higher costs for the government compared to fully competed contracts.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers may not benefit from the cost efficiencies that a competitive bidding process could have generated. This could translate to a higher overall expenditure for the required instruments.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army will receive specialized electrical signal measuring and testing instruments. These instruments are crucial for maintaining and calibrating electronic systems within military operations. The contract's duration extends into late 2027, ensuring sustained availability of necessary equipment. The procurement supports the operational readiness of the U.S. Army's technological infrastructure.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to suboptimal pricing.
Sole-source awards can reduce market pressure for innovation and efficiency.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical equipment can pose supply chain risks.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Award to a well-established contractor like Boeing suggests a degree of reliability.
Contract duration ensures sustained support for essential military equipment.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Instrument Manufacturing sector, specifically for measuring and testing electrical signals. This is a niche but critical area supporting advanced technological systems, particularly in defense. The market for such specialized equipment is often characterized by high barriers to entry due to technical expertise and stringent quality requirements. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without detailed specifications, but procurements in this area typically involve significant investment due to the precision and reliability demanded.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not competed and there is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, it is unlikely to directly benefit small businesses through set-aside provisions. The primary impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on Boeing's internal subcontracting decisions, which are not detailed in this award notice.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, existing oversight mechanisms for that vehicle would apply. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature, but contract performance and payment would be subject to standard government auditing and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense Procurement
Electronic Test Equipment
Military Instrumentation
Sole-Source Contracts
Department of the Army Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for non-competitive pricing

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.3 million to THE BOEING COMPANY. NGATS DO 0007

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 $14.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-12-16. End: 2027-04-28.

What is the historical spending pattern for The Boeing Company with the Department of the Army for similar instrument manufacturing contracts?

Analyzing historical spending for The Boeing Company with the Department of the Army for similar instrument manufacturing contracts requires access to comprehensive federal procurement databases. While this specific award is for $14.3 million, understanding Boeing's broader engagement with the Army in this sector would involve examining past contracts for electrical signal measuring and testing equipment, as well as related instrumentation. Trends might reveal if Boeing is a consistent provider in this niche, if spending has increased or decreased over time, and whether previous sole-source awards have been common for such procurements. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to contextualize this $14.3 million award within a larger pattern of Boeing's performance and pricing for the Army in this domain.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) structure compare to other contract types for procuring specialized defense instrumentation?

The firm fixed-price (FFP) structure used for this $14.3 million award to Boeing offers the government cost certainty, as the price is set and not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's actual costs. This is advantageous when requirements are well-defined and risks of cost overrun are manageable. However, for highly complex or novel instrumentation where technical uncertainties are high, other contract types like Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) or Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) might be considered. These allow for cost sharing and provide incentives for performance, potentially leading to better outcomes in R&D-intensive procurements. For established equipment like electrical signal testers, FFP is often suitable, but the lack of competition here limits the government's ability to leverage FFP for maximum cost savings.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source award for critical defense instrumentation?

A primary risk of a sole-source award for critical defense instrumentation, such as this $14.3 million contract to Boeing, is the potential for inflated pricing due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without competing bids, the government may pay more than necessary. Another significant risk is reduced innovation; contractors may have less incentive to develop more efficient or advanced solutions when they are guaranteed the contract. Furthermore, sole-source awards can create vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to switch providers in the future. This dependence can also pose supply chain risks if the sole provider experiences production issues or goes out of business. Finally, the lack of transparency inherent in sole-source procurements can raise concerns about fairness and the efficient use of taxpayer funds.

What is the typical performance period for contracts of this nature and value within the Department of the Army?

The performance period for this $14.3 million contract awarded to Boeing is from the award date (implied to be near the data extraction date) through April 28, 2027, with a duration of 498 days. This translates to approximately 1 year and 4.5 months. For specialized defense instrumentation, contract durations can vary significantly based on the complexity of the equipment, the scope of work (e.g., manufacturing, integration, testing, training), and the specific needs of the procuring agency. Contracts of this value within the Department of the Army might range from a few months for off-the-shelf items to several years for complex systems development or sustainment. A duration of around 1.5 years for manufacturing and delivery of established instrument types appears reasonable, balancing timely delivery with sustained support.

Are there any known performance issues or track record concerns with The Boeing Company regarding similar defense contracts?

The Boeing Company is a major defense contractor with a long history of delivering complex systems to the Department of Defense. While generally considered a reliable supplier, like any large corporation, Boeing has faced scrutiny and challenges on various programs over the years, including production delays, cost overruns, and quality control issues in specific instances. For this particular contract concerning electrical signal measuring and testing instruments, specific performance data or track record concerns related to Boeing's past delivery of such items are not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) and any publicly available information on Boeing's execution of similar, smaller-scale instrument manufacturing contracts for the Army.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals

Product/Service Code: INSTRUMENTS AND LABORATORY EQPT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6200 JAMES S MCDONNELL BLVD, SAINT LOUIS, MO, 63134

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: $14,272,885

Exercised Options: $14,272,885

Current Obligation: $14,272,885

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $390,375

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W15QKN23D0007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline