Naval Air Warfare Center Training contract awarded to American Systems Corporation for $10.58M for training aids

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,576,742 ($10.6M)

Contractor: American Systems Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-05-16

End Date: 2004-12-20

Contract Duration: 1,314 days

Daily Burn Rate: $8.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200108!00A125!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133900D0021 !A!N!*!N!0005 !20010516!20040530!077799799!077799799!077799799!N!AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION !13990 PARKEAST CIRCLE !CHANTILLY !VA!20151!50000!097!01!MOBILE !MOBILE !ALABAMA !+000002765000!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !333319!*!*!5!B!M! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!Z!A !U!U!2!002!B! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !Z! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: ALABAMA

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.6 million to AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION for work described as: 200108!00A125!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133900D0021 !A!N!*!N!0005 !20010516!20040530!077799799!077799799!077799799!N!AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION !13990 PARKEAST CIRCLE !CHANTILLY !VA!20151!50000!097!01!MOBILE !MOBIL… Key points: 1. Contract value of $10.58M over its period of performance. 2. Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process. 3. Contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 4. The contract duration was 1314 days, suggesting a long-term need for the services. 5. The primary service category is Training Aids, a critical component for military readiness. 6. The contractor, American Systems Corporation, has a track record with this agency.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.58M for training aids over approximately 3.6 years appears reasonable for specialized military training equipment. However, without specific details on the training aids provided, direct benchmarking is difficult. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type introduces inherent risk for cost escalation, as the government bears the cost of performance plus a fixed fee. This contrasts with fixed-price contracts where the contractor assumes more cost risk. The number of bids (2) suggests moderate competition, which might not have driven the absolute lowest price.

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 a bid. Two bids were received, indicating a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While competition is generally positive, a higher number of bidders often leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition, despite receiving only two bids, suggests an effort to achieve fair market value. However, with limited bidders, taxpayers may not have benefited from the most aggressive pricing possible.

Public Impact

Naval personnel requiring advanced training aids for aviation warfare. Enhanced readiness and effectiveness of naval aircrews through realistic training simulations. Support for training operations primarily within Alabama, where the contractor is located. Potential for specialized jobs in the development and maintenance of training systems.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can lead to higher final costs than fixed-price agreements.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may have resulted in a higher price than if more vendors had participated.
The specific nature of 'training aids' can be broad, making it difficult to assess if the full scope was competitively priced.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring a fair process.
The contractor, American Systems Corporation, has experience with this type of requirement.
The contract duration suggests a stable and ongoing need for these critical training services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense sector, specifically focusing on training and simulation technologies. The market for defense training aids is substantial, driven by the need for realistic and cost-effective preparation for complex military operations. Companies like American Systems Corporation often specialize in developing sophisticated simulation and training solutions, ranging from virtual reality environments to physical mock-ups. Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without detailed specifications, but it represents a typical investment in maintaining technological superiority in military training.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included a small business set-aside. The prime contractor, American Systems Corporation, is a mid-sized company. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would depend on the prime contractor's strategy and the specific needs of the training aids developed, which are not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division and the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Inspector General investigations could be initiated if fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns may not always be publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Naval Training Systems
Defense Simulation and Training
Aviation Training Equipment
Cost Plus Fixed Fee Contracts
Department of Defense Procurement

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type carries inherent risk of cost overruns.
Limited number of bidders (2) may indicate suboptimal price competition.
Lack of detailed scope for 'training aids' hinders precise value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.6 million to AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION. 200108!00A125!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133900D0021 !A!N!*!N!0005 !20010516!20040530!077799799!077799799!077799799!N!AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION !13990 PARKEAST CIRCLE !CHANTILLY !VA!20151!50000!097!01!MOBILE !MOBILE !ALABAMA !+000002765000!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !333319!*!*!5!B!M! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-05-16. End: 2004-12-20.

What specific types of training aids were procured under this contract?

The data indicates the contract was for 'TRAINING AIDS' under the Product Service Code (PSC) 6910. This broad category can encompass a wide range of items, including but not limited to flight simulators, virtual reality training systems, computer-based training modules, physical mock-ups of aircraft or equipment, and instructional materials. Without further details from the contract's statement of work or performance reports, the precise nature and complexity of the training aids remain unspecified. This lack of specificity makes it challenging to perform detailed value analysis or compare costs against similar, precisely defined procurements.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for similar training aid procurements?

Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not well-defined or involves significant uncertainty, such as in research and development or the creation of novel training systems. In this case, the government pays the contractor's actual costs plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This contrasts with fixed-price contracts (e.g., FFP), where the price is set upfront, and the contractor assumes more risk for cost overruns. For mature, well-defined training aid requirements, fixed-price contracts are generally preferred for better cost control. The CPFF structure here suggests a degree of uncertainty or innovation in the training aids required, potentially leading to higher overall costs for the government compared to a fixed-price approach if costs escalate significantly.

What is the historical spending trend for training aids by the Naval Air Warfare Center?

Historical spending data for training aids by the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) would require a comprehensive analysis of federal procurement databases over several fiscal years. This specific contract (N6133900D0021) was awarded in 2001 and completed in 2004, representing a snapshot of spending during that period. To understand trends, one would need to examine NAWC's spending on PSC 6910 (Training Aids) and related categories across multiple years, identifying patterns of increase or decrease, major contract awards, and shifts in technology or service providers. Such an analysis would reveal whether spending on training aids has been consistent, growing, or declining, and how this particular $10.58M contract fits into the larger budgetary picture for naval aviation training.

What is the track record of American Systems Corporation in delivering defense training solutions?

American Systems Corporation has a significant history of providing services and solutions to the U.S. military, including training and simulation systems. Their portfolio often includes developing and integrating complex training environments, virtual reality applications, and technical support for defense programs. This specific contract with the Naval Air Warfare Center for training aids aligns with their established capabilities. While the success of this particular $10.58M contract would be detailed in performance reports (often not publicly accessible), the company's continued presence and awards in the defense sector suggest a generally positive track record in meeting government requirements for training and readiness.

How did the competition level (2 bidders) impact the potential value for money in this contract?

A competition with only two bidders generally offers less potential for achieving optimal value for money compared to a scenario with multiple, competing offers. With fewer bidders, the government has a reduced pool of options, potentially limiting price negotiation leverage and the incentive for each bidder to offer their most competitive pricing. While 'full and open competition' was utilized, indicating the process was accessible, the low number of responses suggests that either the requirement was highly specialized, attracting only a few capable vendors, or market conditions at the time limited the number of interested parties. Consequently, the $10.58M award might be higher than it could have been with more robust competition.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Contractor Details

Address: 13990 PARKEAST CIR, CHANTILLY, VA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6133900D0021

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline