Naval Air Warfare Center Training contract for $35.4M awarded to Evans & Sutherland Computer Co. for training device maintenance

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $35,401,202 ($35.4M)

Contractor: Rockwell Collins Simulation & Training Solutions LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-05-10

End Date: 2010-09-15

Contract Duration: 3,415 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200108!00H126!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133901D0726 !A!N!*!N!0001 !20010510!20031030!626980312!626980312!045263035!N!EVANS & SUTHERLAND COMPUTER CO!12301 CHALLENGER PARKWAY !ORLANDO !FL!32826!67000!035!49!SALT LAKE CITY !SALT LAKE !UTAH !+000010697949!N!N!000000000000!J069!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES !A9 !TEXTILES, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPA!1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541990!*!*!5!B!M! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!Z!A !U!J!2!002!B! !A!N!C! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!A!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: CEDAR RAPIDS, LINN County, IOWA, 52498

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $35.4 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC for work described as: 200108!00H126!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133901D0726 !A!N!*!N!0001 !20010510!20031030!626980312!626980312!045263035!N!EVANS & SUTHERLAND COMPUTER CO!12301 CHALLENGER PARKWAY !ORLANDO !FL!32826!67000!035!49!SALT LAKE CITY !SALT … Key points: 1. Contract value of $35.4M for maintenance and repair of training equipment. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract duration of over 10 years suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. The primary service involves maintenance and repair of training aids and devices. 5. The contractor, Evans & Sutherland Computer Co., has a track record in simulation and training. 6. The contract falls under the broader category of commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $35.4 million over a 10-year period averages approximately $3.54 million per year. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for training device maintenance is challenging without more specific data on the types and complexity of the devices. However, the duration suggests a significant and ongoing requirement. The fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for value if the pricing was competitive.

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 bids. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While two bidders indicate some level of market interest, it is not as robust as a scenario with numerous competing offers. This level of competition is generally sufficient to promote price discovery and ensure a reasonable price for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces. Full and open competition is the preferred method for maximizing value and minimizing the risk of overpayment.

Public Impact

Naval personnel benefit from well-maintained training equipment, enhancing readiness and skill development. Services delivered include the essential maintenance and repair of training aids and devices. The geographic impact is primarily centered around naval training facilities where these devices are utilized. Workforce implications include the need for skilled technicians to perform maintenance and repair tasks.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 10 years) could lead to potential cost creep if not managed effectively.
Limited number of bidders (2) might indicate potential barriers to entry or a niche market.
Reliance on a single contractor for an extended period could pose risks if performance degrades.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent process.
Firm Fixed Price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Contractor has experience in the simulation and training sector.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense sector, specifically supporting training and simulation capabilities. The market for defense training systems and associated maintenance is substantial, driven by the need for advanced and realistic training environments. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other contracts for the maintenance of complex training simulators, virtual reality systems, and other specialized training equipment used by military branches.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this data snippet. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), as indicated by the 'sa' field. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which places cost responsibility on the contractor. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Naval Training Systems
Defense Simulation and Training
Military Equipment Maintenance
Flight Simulators
Virtual Reality Training

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of technological obsolescence.
Limited competition (2 bidders) could result in suboptimal pricing.
Potential for cost creep if maintenance needs evolve significantly over time.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $35.4 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC. 200108!00H126!1700!A8302 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133901D0726 !A!N!*!N!0001 !20010510!20031030!626980312!626980312!045263035!N!EVANS & SUTHERLAND COMPUTER CO!12301 CHALLENGER PARKWAY !ORLANDO !FL!32826!67000!035!49!SALT LAKE CITY !SALT LAKE !UTAH !+000010697949!N!N!000000000000!J069!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES !A9 !TEXTILES, CLOTHING, AND EQUIPA!1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !541990!*!*!5!B!M! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $35.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-05-10. End: 2010-09-15.

What is the historical spending trend for maintenance and repair of training aids and devices by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training?

Analyzing historical spending trends for this specific contract requires access to a broader dataset that tracks all awards related to 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES' for the Naval Air Warfare Center Training over multiple fiscal years. The provided data point represents a single contract awarded in 2001 with an end date in 2010, totaling $35.4 million. To establish a trend, one would need to aggregate spending on similar contracts over time, identify any significant increases or decreases in annual spending, and correlate these with changes in training requirements, technology adoption, or budget allocations. Without this broader historical context, it's impossible to definitively describe spending trends.

How does the per-unit cost of maintaining these training devices compare to industry benchmarks?

Determining a precise per-unit cost for maintaining these training devices and comparing it to industry benchmarks is complex without more granular data. The contract covers 'MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/TRAINING AIDS & DEVICES' broadly, and the 'unit' could refer to a single simulator, a component, or a service hour. The total contract value is $35.4 million over approximately 10 years. If we assume a simplified scenario where 'unit' refers to an average annual maintenance cost, it would be around $3.54 million per year. However, industry benchmarks for such specialized equipment are highly variable, depending on the sophistication, age, and type of training device (e.g., flight simulators vs. virtual reality trainers). A true benchmark would require detailed cost breakdowns from the contractor and comparison with similar contracts awarded to other entities for comparable equipment.

What is the track record of Evans & Sutherland Computer Co. in fulfilling similar government contracts?

Evans & Sutherland Computer Co. has a significant track record in the defense and simulation industry. While this specific contract (N6133901D0726) was awarded to them, a comprehensive assessment of their track record would involve reviewing their performance on other government contracts, particularly those related to training systems maintenance and repair. Key aspects to examine would include on-time delivery, adherence to budget (especially relevant for cost-plus contracts, though this one is fixed-price), quality of service, and any past performance issues or awards. Their long history in developing and supporting simulation and training systems suggests a foundational capability, but specific performance metrics on past government work are crucial for a complete evaluation.

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

The primary risk associated with the long duration (over 10 years) of this contract is the potential for technological obsolescence of the training devices being maintained, or the emergence of more cost-effective or advanced training solutions. If the technology underpinning the training aids becomes outdated, the maintenance costs might become disproportionately high compared to the value derived. Additionally, a prolonged contract period can sometimes lead to complacency or reduced urgency in performance if not actively managed through robust oversight and performance metrics. There's also the risk that the contractor's capabilities or financial stability could change over such an extended period, potentially impacting service delivery.

How does the level of competition (2 bidders) impact the overall value for taxpayers?

A competition level with only two bidders, while better than a sole-source award, suggests a moderately competitive market for this specific type of training device maintenance. In a highly competitive market with numerous bidders, prices are typically driven down more aggressively. With only two bidders, there is a greater possibility that the winning price might be higher than it could be in a more crowded field. However, the 'full and open' nature of the competition ensures that at least two companies found the opportunity viable and submitted proposals, indicating some level of market validation. The government's ability to negotiate favorable terms and ensure competitive pricing depends heavily on the specific details of the solicitation and the capabilities of the bidders.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Rockwell Collins, Inc. (UEI: 962960589)

Address: 22626 SALLY RIDE DR, STERLING, VA, 10

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6133901D0726

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline