Raytheon Company awarded $127M for Qatar training academy, with 1,070 days duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $127,011,589 ($127.0M)

Contractor: Raytheon Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-12-30

End Date: 2020-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,187 days

Daily Burn Rate: $107.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF FOREIGN MILITARY SALES, TRAINING ACADEMY AT QATAR

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $127.0 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF FOREIGN MILITARY SALES, TRAINING ACADEMY AT QATAR Key points: 1. Contract value of $127 million for a training academy in Qatar. 2. Long contract duration of 1,070 days suggests a complex, multi-year requirement. 3. Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a defense-related training need. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 611699 points to specialized instruction services. 5. Contract type is a definitive contract, suggesting a firm commitment for services. 6. Pricing structure is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable training academy contracts. The $127 million price tag over nearly three years suggests a significant investment in specialized training. The Firm Fixed Price structure implies that the contractor is responsible for managing costs to meet the agreed-upon price, which can be beneficial for the government if costs are controlled effectively. However, without insight into the scope of training and the number of personnel trained, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicated by 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION'. This suggests that either only one source was capable of providing the required services, or there was a specific justification for a sole-source award, such as a unique capability or urgent need. The lack of competition means the government did not benefit from a price discovery process driven by multiple bidders, potentially leading to a higher price than if it had been competed.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of competition means taxpayers may have paid a premium, as there was no market pressure to drive down costs. This also limits transparency into whether the government secured the best possible price for the training services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely U.S. military personnel and potentially allied forces receiving training at the academy in Qatar. The services delivered involve specialized instruction and training, likely in areas critical to defense operations. The geographic impact is centered in Qatar, supporting U.S. foreign military engagement and training initiatives in the region. Workforce implications could include the need for specialized instructors and support staff, both U.S. and potentially local hires.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer funds.
The long duration of the contract could lead to scope creep or cost overruns if not managed diligently.
Sole-source awards can limit opportunities for other capable contractors to participate and innovate.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract structure places cost control responsibility on the contractor.
Awarded by the Department of the Army, suggesting alignment with strategic defense training objectives.
The specific NAICS code indicates a focus on specialized, potentially high-value training services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense and education services sector. The market for specialized military training is significant, driven by global security needs and international partnerships. Raytheon Company, as a major defense contractor, is well-positioned in this sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale international training initiatives or the establishment of similar educational facilities for military purposes, often valued in the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides. The nature of specialized military training academies often requires large, established contractors with extensive resources and expertise. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist but are not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless Raytheon actively engages small businesses for support services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of public detail on performance. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Foreign Military Sales (FMS)
Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) programs
Military Training and Education Services
International Defense Partnerships

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing pressure.
Long contract duration requires diligent oversight to prevent cost overruns.
Geographic location may introduce logistical and geopolitical risks.
Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $127.0 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY. IGF::OT::IGF FOREIGN MILITARY SALES, TRAINING ACADEMY AT QATAR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RAYTHEON 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 $127.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-12-30. End: 2020-03-31.

What specific training curriculum and services are being provided under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact training curriculum or services. However, the NAICS code 611699, 'All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction,' suggests a broad range of specialized educational and training programs. Given the Department of the Army and the location in Qatar, it is highly probable that the training relates to military operations, equipment maintenance, or strategic defense protocols relevant to U.S. interests and allied forces in the Middle East. Further details would likely be found in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS), which are not publicly available in this data extract.

How does the $127 million cost compare to similar international military training academies?

Direct cost comparisons for international military training academies are difficult without detailed specifications of scope, duration, and trainee numbers. However, $127 million over approximately 3 years (1187 days) represents a substantial investment. Large-scale training facilities and programs for allied nations can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on complexity and strategic importance. For instance, establishing and operating advanced training centers for complex weapon systems or specialized operational units often incurs significant costs for infrastructure, personnel, curriculum development, and sustainment. The Firm Fixed Price nature suggests Raytheon is responsible for managing these costs within the awarded amount.

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

Specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, for training contracts, KPIs would focus on factors such as trainee throughput, successful completion rates, proficiency levels achieved post-training, adherence to schedule, and quality of instruction. Performance would likely be monitored through regular progress reports, site visits, and potentially feedback from trainees or sponsoring military units. The Department of the Army's contracting officer and program managers would be responsible for overseeing Raytheon's adherence to the contract's performance requirements and ensuring the training objectives are met.

What is Raytheon Company's track record with similar sole-source defense training contracts?

Raytheon Company, now part of RTX, has a long history of executing large, complex defense contracts, including those involving training and simulation systems. While this specific contract was sole-source, Raytheon frequently competes for and wins significant defense training programs. Their track record generally includes delivering sophisticated solutions across various domains, from aviation to missile defense. However, the specifics of their performance on sole-source training academies, particularly in the Middle East, would require a deeper dive into contract performance databases and historical award data to assess consistency and identify any potential issues or successes.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for a training academy in a foreign country?

Sole-source awards inherently carry risks, primarily the potential for higher costs due to lack of competition and reduced incentive for the contractor to optimize pricing. For a training academy in Qatar, additional risks include geopolitical instability, logistical challenges in deploying personnel and equipment, cultural and language barriers impacting training effectiveness, and potential for scope creep if the training requirements evolve. Ensuring adequate oversight and clear performance metrics becomes even more critical to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives adequate value and achieves its strategic objectives for the training program.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Other Schools and Instruction › All Other Miscellaneous Schools and Instruction

Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp

Address: 350 LOWELL ST, ANDOVER, MA, 01810

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: $127,077,253

Exercised Options: $127,011,589

Current Obligation: $127,011,589

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 192

Total Subaward Amount: $17,751,424

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline