DoD's $16M Flight Simulator Contract Awarded to White Mountain Construction LLC Under Sole-Source Basis

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,961,157 ($16.0M)

Contractor: White Mountain Construction LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-04-16

End Date: 2011-04-30

Contract Duration: 744 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: ELM302 F22A FLIGHT SIMULATOR

Place of Performance

Location: ELMENDORF AFB, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99506

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.0 million to WHITE MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION LLC for work described as: ELM302 F22A FLIGHT SIMULATOR Key points: 1. The contract's value of $15.96 million for a flight simulator raises questions about cost-effectiveness given the sole-source award. 2. Limited competition for this contract may have led to suboptimal pricing and reduced opportunities for innovative solutions. 3. The duration of the contract (744 days) and its firm-fixed-price nature suggest a defined scope, but performance risks are not detailed. 4. This contract positions the Department of the Army within the broader defense training and simulation sector. 5. The absence of small business participation is noted, with no set-aside or subcontracting plans indicated.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $15.96 million flight simulator contract is challenging without comparable sole-source awards or detailed cost breakdowns. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests cost certainty for the government, but the lack of competition raises concerns about whether the price reflects true market value. Without competitive bids, it's difficult to assess if White Mountain Construction LLC provided the best possible value for the taxpayer.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning White Mountain Construction LLC was the only bidder considered. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves multiple companies vying for the contract. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to secure the best price and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can result in higher costs for taxpayers as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This limits the government's negotiating power and potentially leads to less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Department of the Army, which receives a flight simulator for training purposes. The contract delivers a critical training asset, likely enhancing pilot proficiency and operational readiness. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska (ST: AK, SN: ALASKA), where the simulator will be deployed or utilized. Workforce implications are likely related to the construction and installation of the simulator, potentially involving specialized technical personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source procurement.
No indication of small business participation or subcontracting opportunities.
Limited information on performance metrics and success criteria for the simulator.
Potential for cost overruns if scope was not fully defined or if unforeseen issues arise.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Contract awarded to a specific entity (White Mountain Construction LLC) suggests a targeted need.
The contract addresses a specific requirement for a flight simulator, crucial for military training.
The contract duration is defined, allowing for planning and resource allocation.

Sector Analysis

The defense sector relies heavily on advanced simulation technologies for training and mission rehearsal. Contracts for flight simulators fall under the broader category of defense procurement, specifically within the domain of training systems and equipment. The market for such systems is specialized, often involving a limited number of experienced contractors. Spending in this area is critical for maintaining military readiness and technological superiority, with significant government investment allocated annually to simulation and training solutions.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, there is no explicit mention of subcontracting plans involving small businesses. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract are limited, potentially impacting the broader small business ecosystem within the defense contracting sphere.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. As a definitive contract, it is subject to standard federal procurement regulations and oversight. Transparency regarding the sole-source justification and performance monitoring would be key accountability measures. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Training Systems
Military Flight Simulators
Aerospace Training Equipment
Department of Defense Procurement
Sole-Source Contract Awards

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification.
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition.
Limited transparency on performance metrics and evaluation.
No small business participation noted.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.0 million to WHITE MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION LLC. ELM302 F22A FLIGHT SIMULATOR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WHITE MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-16. End: 2011-04-30.

What was the specific justification provided for awarding this flight simulator contract on a sole-source basis to White Mountain Construction LLC?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source procurements are justified under circumstances such as only one responsible source being available, or when a compelling urgency dictates the need for a specific contractor's services. Without this documentation, it is impossible to assess the validity of the sole-source determination and whether competitive alternatives were adequately explored. This lack of transparency is a common concern with sole-source contracts, as it can shield the government from the benefits of competition and potentially lead to higher prices.

How does the $15.96 million cost of this flight simulator compare to similar contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other agencies?

Direct comparison of the $15.96 million cost is difficult without knowing the specific capabilities and complexity of the flight simulator. However, flight simulators can range significantly in price based on fidelity, aircraft type simulated, and features. Sole-source awards, by their nature, lack a competitive benchmark, making it harder to ascertain if this price is optimal. Generally, competitive procurements for advanced simulators can yield a wider range of pricing, allowing for better value assessment. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests the government aimed for cost certainty, but the absence of competition raises questions about whether this price represents the best value achievable in the market.

What are the primary risks associated with awarding a contract of this magnitude ($15.96 million) on a sole-source basis?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude include potential overpayment due to lack of competitive pricing, reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or provide exceptional value, and a lack of transparency in the procurement process. Taxpayers may bear a higher cost than if the contract had been competed. Furthermore, there's a risk that the chosen contractor may not be the most capable or cost-effective solution available in the market. Without competition, the government has less leverage to negotiate favorable terms and conditions, increasing the overall risk profile of the contract.

What performance metrics or success criteria were established for this flight simulator contract to ensure its effectiveness for pilot training?

The provided data does not detail the specific performance metrics or success criteria established for this flight simulator contract. For a contract of this nature, key performance indicators (KPIs) would typically include simulator fidelity, uptime/availability, training effectiveness as measured by pilot performance improvements, and adherence to safety standards. The firm-fixed-price contract structure implies a defined scope of delivery, but the effectiveness of the delivered product in meeting the Army's training objectives would need to be assessed through separate performance evaluations and user feedback mechanisms.

What is the historical spending pattern for flight simulators within the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense?

Historical spending on flight simulators within the Department of the Army and the broader Department of Defense is substantial and ongoing, reflecting the critical role of simulation in modern military training. This spending fluctuates based on modernization needs, fleet upgrades, and the introduction of new aircraft or operational doctrines. While specific aggregate figures for flight simulators are not readily available in this dataset, it is a significant category within defense training and simulation procurement. The Army, in particular, invests heavily in simulators to maintain pilot proficiency across various aircraft platforms, often awarding multi-year contracts for advanced systems.

What is the track record of White Mountain Construction LLC in delivering complex defense or simulation-related contracts?

Information regarding White Mountain Construction LLC's track record specifically in delivering complex defense or simulation-related contracts is not provided in the dataset. The data indicates they were awarded this $15.96 million definitive contract for a flight simulator. Further research would be required to ascertain their experience, past performance on similar projects, and overall reputation within the defense contracting community. Without this context, it is difficult to assess their capability and reliability for this specific requirement.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: CONSTRUCT OF STRUCTURES/FACILITIES › CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W911KB08R0006

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 561 E STEEL LOOP STE 200, PALMER, AK, 99645

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,961,157

Exercised Options: $15,961,157

Current Obligation: $15,961,157

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline