Naval Air Warfare Center Training contract awarded to NLX Corporation for $809M over 12 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,778,439 ($15.8M)

Contractor: Rockwell Collins Simulation & Training Solutions LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-08-07

End Date: 2015-07-07

Contract Duration: 4,352 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200311!000179!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133900D0022 !A!N! !N!0006 !20030807!20060731!809238447!809238447!809238447!N!NLX CORPORATION !22626 SALLY RIDE DRIVE !STERLING !VA!20164!75376!107!51!STERLING !LOUDOUN !VIRGINIA !+000011621306!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !333319!E! !5!B!M! !A! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!U!L!2!002!B! !Z!N!F! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !B! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!Y!

Place of Performance

Location: STERLING, LOUDOUN County, VIRGINIA, 20164, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.8 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC for work described as: 200311!000179!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133900D0022 !A!N! !N!0006 !20030807!20060731!809238447!809238447!809238447!N!NLX CORPORATION !22626 SALLY RIDE DRIVE !STERLING !VA!20164!75376!107!51!STERLING !LOUDO… Key points: 1. Contract value of $809M over 12 years suggests a significant investment in training solutions. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price incentive contract type suggests a focus on performance and cost control. 4. The duration of the contract (12 years) implies a long-term need for these training services. 5. The primary service category is Training Aids, indicating a focus on simulation and educational tools. 6. The contractor, NLX Corporation, has a presence in Sterling, Virginia, suggesting a domestic supplier.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $809,238,447 over approximately 12 years (August 2003 to July 2015) averages to about $67.4 million per year. Without specific details on the training aids or services provided, it's difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the fixed-price incentive structure suggests an attempt to balance cost and performance, which can be a good value if performance targets are met. The number of bids (8) indicates some level of competition, which should help in price discovery.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, with 8 bids received. This indicates a robust bidding environment where multiple vendors had the opportunity to compete for the contract. The presence of multiple bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of solutions being considered, which is beneficial for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition with 8 bidders suggests that taxpayers likely benefited from competitive pricing and potentially innovative solutions, as vendors vied to offer the best value.

Public Impact

Naval personnel requiring advanced training will benefit from the services and equipment provided. The contract supports the development and delivery of training aids, crucial for military readiness. The geographic impact is primarily within the naval training infrastructure, likely at various bases. The contract may have implications for the defense training sector workforce, including instructors and technical support staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The long contract duration could lead to vendor lock-in if not managed carefully.
Fixed-price incentive contracts can become costly if performance targets are not well-defined or achievable.
Reliance on a single contractor for such a long period might reduce flexibility in adopting new technologies.

Positive Signals

The full and open competition suggests a healthy market and potential for good value.
The incentive structure in the contract type aims to align contractor performance with government objectives.
The significant investment indicates a commitment to enhancing naval training capabilities.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the broader defense sector, specifically focusing on training and simulation technologies. The market for defense training solutions is substantial, driven by the need for realistic and effective preparation for military operations. This contract for training aids fits within the segment of companies providing specialized equipment and services to enhance military readiness, often involving complex simulations and virtual environments.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication of small business set-asides for this contract. The presence of 8 bidders suggests that larger companies may have dominated the competition. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved as subcontractors, which is common in large defense contracts.

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 reports and regular program reviews would be standard mechanisms for accountability and transparency. The fixed-price incentive structure also implies performance monitoring to ensure cost and delivery targets are met.

Related Government Programs

Naval Training Systems
Simulation and Training Technology
Defense Readiness Programs
Military Education and Development

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may limit flexibility.
Fixed-price incentive contracts require careful performance monitoring.
Specific performance metrics not detailed in summary data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.8 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC. 200311!000179!1700!A8305 !NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133900D0022 !A!N! !N!0006 !20030807!20060731!809238447!809238447!809238447!N!NLX CORPORATION !22626 SALLY RIDE DRIVE !STERLING !VA!20164!75376!107!51!STERLING !LOUDOUN !VIRGINIA !+000011621306!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !333319!E! !5!B!M! !A! !99990909!B

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 (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-08-07. End: 2015-07-07.

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

The provided data indicates the Product Service Code (PSC) is 6910, which corresponds to 'Training Aids'. This broad category can encompass a wide range of items, including simulators, virtual reality training systems, computer-based training modules, mock-ups, and other instructional materials. Without more granular data, the exact nature of the training aids remains unspecified. However, given the Naval Air Warfare Center context, it is likely these aids are related to aviation training, potentially including flight simulators, maintenance trainers, or tactical scenario generators.

How does the average annual value of this contract compare to other major training system contracts within the DoD?

This contract's average annual value is approximately $67.4 million ($809M / 12 years). Benchmarking this requires access to data on similar large-scale training system contracts across the Department of Defense. Major simulator programs, like those for fighter jets or large transport aircraft, can often exceed this annual value, sometimes reaching hundreds of millions per year for development and sustainment. Conversely, contracts for simpler training aids or localized training solutions would be significantly lower. Therefore, $67.4M annually appears to be a substantial but not exceptionally large figure within the broader context of major DoD training system procurements, suggesting a significant but perhaps not the largest program.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with the 'incentive' aspect of this Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract?

The data provided does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or the incentive structure for this particular Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract. In an FPI contract, the final price is determined by the performance achieved against pre-defined targets. Typically, these targets relate to cost, schedule, and performance (e.g., technical specifications, delivery timelines, system reliability). The government and contractor negotiate a target cost, a target profit, and a price ceiling. If the contractor achieves lower costs than the target, both share in the savings (within limits). If costs exceed the target, the contractor absorbs a portion of the overrun, up to the price ceiling. The specific metrics for 'incentive' would be detailed in the contract's Statement of Work and associated clauses.

What is the track record of NLX Corporation in fulfilling large federal contracts, particularly within the defense sector?

The provided data identifies NLX Corporation as the contractor for this $809M Naval Air Warfare Center contract. However, it does not offer details on NLX Corporation's broader track record, past performance on other federal contracts, or its history within the defense sector. To assess their track record, one would need to consult databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) to review past contract awards, performance evaluations, and any history of disputes or issues. Without this additional information, it's impossible to definitively comment on their reliability or experience with similar large-scale defense contracts.

How has spending on 'Training Aids' (PSC 6910) by the Department of the Navy trended over the years leading up to and following this contract?

This contract, awarded in August 2003 and ending in July 2015, represents a significant portion of spending within the 'Training Aids' (PSC 6910) category for the Department of the Navy during that period. To analyze trends, one would need to examine historical spending data for PSC 6910 from sources like FPDS. Generally, defense spending on training systems, especially advanced simulators and virtual training environments, has seen fluctuations driven by technological advancements, evolving military doctrines, and budget cycles. Post-2015, there has been a continued emphasis on sophisticated training technologies, including AI-driven adaptive learning and immersive VR/AR, suggesting that spending in this category likely remained robust or increased, albeit with shifts in the specific types of aids procured.

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

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 8

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Address: 400 COLLINS RD NE, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA, 52498

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6133900D0022

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline