DoD awards $127.6M for flight simulation training, with General Dynamics IT leading

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $127,564,503 ($127.6M)

Contractor: General Dynamics Information Technology Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-03-27

End Date: 2020-03-31

Contract Duration: 370 days

Daily Burn Rate: $344.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: ISSUING TASK ORDER (TO) FOR LOT YEAR XVII IN SUPPORT OF FLIGHT SCHOOL TWENTY-ONE (FSXXI) SIMULATION TRAINING SERVICES, UNDER CONTRACT N61339-03-D-0014.

Place of Performance

Location: CHANTILLY, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20151

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $127.6 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INC. for work described as: ISSUING TASK ORDER (TO) FOR LOT YEAR XVII IN SUPPORT OF FLIGHT SCHOOL TWENTY-ONE (FSXXI) SIMULATION TRAINING SERVICES, UNDER CONTRACT N61339-03-D-0014. Key points: 1. Value for money assessed through fixed-price contract type, aiming to control costs. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, potentially driving competitive pricing. 3. Risk indicators include contract duration and the nature of simulation services. 4. Performance context is tied to ongoing flight training support under an existing contract. 5. Sector positioning within defense services, specifically training and simulation.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $127.6 million for a 370-day period suggests a significant investment in flight simulation training. Benchmarking against similar large-scale simulation contracts within the Department of Defense is crucial for a precise value assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure is generally favorable for cost control, but the overall value depends on the quality and effectiveness of the training delivered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but this competitive approach is generally expected to yield better pricing and service options for the government compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is favorable for taxpayers as it encourages a wider range of providers to compete, potentially leading to lower prices and higher quality services through market forces.

Public Impact

Benefits military personnel by providing essential flight simulation training. Delivers critical simulation services to support pilot readiness and operational effectiveness. Geographic impact is likely concentrated around military training bases where flight schools operate. Workforce implications include employment for instructors, technicians, and support staff within the defense contracting sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs despite fixed-price contract.
Dependence on contractor's ability to maintain and update complex simulation systems.
Risk of training effectiveness being impacted by outdated simulation technology if not regularly upgraded.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type helps mitigate cost uncertainty for the government.
Awarded under an existing contract vehicle (N61339-03-D-0014), suggesting established processes.
Full and open competition generally leads to better value and service quality.

Sector Analysis

The defense training and simulation market is a substantial segment of the broader aerospace and defense industry. This contract falls within the specialized area of providing advanced simulation capabilities, which are critical for military readiness. Spending in this sector is driven by the need for realistic, cost-effective training solutions that minimize risks associated with live flight operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large simulation and training contracts awarded by the DoD and other military branches.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was false and there was no small business set-aside (ss). This suggests that the contract was awarded to a large prime contractor, General Dynamics Information Technology Inc. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but they are not explicitly detailed in this task order. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor actively seeks out and utilizes small business subcontractors for specialized services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the issuing agency, the Department of the Army, through contract officers and technical representatives. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award data being publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

DoD Flight Training Programs
Military Simulation and Training Systems
Aerospace Defense Services
Contract N61339-03-D-0014

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Scope of Services
Reliance on Existing Contract Vehicle

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $127.6 million to GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INC.. ISSUING TASK ORDER (TO) FOR LOT YEAR XVII IN SUPPORT OF FLIGHT SCHOOL TWENTY-ONE (FSXXI) SIMULATION TRAINING SERVICES, UNDER CONTRACT N61339-03-D-0014.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $127.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-03-27. End: 2020-03-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for flight simulation training services under contract N61339-03-D-0014?

Contract N61339-03-D-0014, under which this task order was issued, has a long history, originally awarded in 2003. While specific historical spending for Lot Year XVII is detailed here ($127.6M), understanding the full pattern requires examining all previous task orders issued under this indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract. This would involve analyzing the total value of prior awards, the types of services rendered, and the contractors who received them. Such an analysis would reveal trends in demand for simulation services, potential fluctuations in pricing over time, and the sustained reliance of the Department of the Army on this contract vehicle for flight training support. Without access to the complete award history for N61339-03-D-0014, a comprehensive historical spending pattern cannot be fully established, but the issuance of this significant task order indicates continued and substantial investment in these services.

How does the per-unit cost of this simulation training compare to similar contracts?

Determining a precise per-unit cost for this simulation training is challenging without more granular data on the specific services provided and the units of measure (e.g., per training hour, per student, per simulation system utilized). The total award of $127.6 million over approximately 370 days covers 'Flight School Twenty-One (FSXXI) Simulation Training Services.' To benchmark per-unit costs, one would need to identify comparable contracts for similar military flight simulation training, ideally within the Department of the Army or other branches, that specify the number of training hours, students, or simulation platforms supported. Factors such as the complexity of aircraft simulated, the fidelity of the simulators, and the required instructor support significantly influence per-unit costs. A preliminary assessment suggests the value is substantial, but a definitive comparison requires detailed service metrics and access to benchmark data for similar DoD simulation contracts.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract, and how is performance being measured?

The provided data does not explicitly list the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this specific task order. However, for flight simulation training services, typical KPIs would likely include metrics related to simulator availability and uptime, training completion rates, student performance improvements (measured through tests or evaluations), adherence to training schedules, and instructor qualifications. Performance measurement would likely involve regular reporting by the contractor, government inspections and audits, and feedback from the trainees and training command. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor is obligated to meet defined performance standards to receive full payment. Failure to meet critical KPIs could result in penalties or contract termination, underscoring the importance of clearly defined and measurable performance expectations.

What is the track record of General Dynamics Information Technology Inc. in delivering similar simulation training services?

General Dynamics Information Technology Inc. (GDIT) has a significant and extensive track record in providing a wide array of IT and professional services to the U.S. government, including the Department of Defense. Within the realm of simulation and training, GDIT has historically been involved in developing, integrating, and maintaining complex simulation systems, providing training support, and managing large-scale training programs for various military branches. Their experience often encompasses virtual and constructive simulation, as well as live training support. While this specific task order represents a substantial award, GDIT's established presence and past performance in the defense sector suggest a capacity to handle such requirements. A deeper dive into their specific contract history related to flight simulation, particularly under similar contract vehicles or for comparable aircraft types, would provide more targeted insights into their expertise and past success rates in this specialized area.

What are the potential risks associated with the duration and scope of this contract?

The contract duration of 370 days, while relatively short for a large contract, still presents potential risks. For the government, risks include the possibility of the contractor's performance degrading over time, especially if incentives for sustained high performance are weak. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in if transitioning to a new provider at the end of the period proves difficult or costly. For the contractor, risks involve accurately estimating costs and resources for the entire period, managing personnel retention, and adapting to any unforeseen changes in training requirements or technology. The scope, focused on 'FSXXI Simulation Training Services,' implies a need for specialized equipment and expertise. Risks here include the potential for technological obsolescence of simulators, the need for continuous software updates, and ensuring the training remains relevant to evolving military operational needs. The firm-fixed-price nature mitigates some financial risk for the government but places the burden of cost control squarely on the contractor.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Other Support Services › All Other Support Services

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 3170 FAIRVIEW PARK DR, FALLS CHURCH, VA, 22042

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $127,564,503

Exercised Options: $127,564,503

Current Obligation: $127,564,503

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6133903D0014

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline