DoD's $18.4M contract for aircraft structural component repair awarded to Lear Siegler Services, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,367,654 ($18.4M)

Contractor: URS Federal Services Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-07-07

End Date: 2009-03-02

Contract Duration: 238 days

Daily Burn Rate: $77.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200610!001400!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0423 !A!N! !N!0167 ! !20060824!20070824!020205527!073871048!043271568!N!LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INC !2701 LIBERTY PARKWAY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!20588!139!37!ELIZABETH CITY COAST!PASQUOTANK !N CAROLINA!+000004276000!N!N!000000000000!J015!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPS !A1A!AIRFRAMES AND SPARES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !336413!E! !5!B!M! !A! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!U!Y!2!004!B! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !C!A!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! ! !2100! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: ELIZABETH CITY, PASQUOTANK County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27909

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.4 million to URS FEDERAL SERVICES INC. for work described as: 200610!001400!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0423 !A!N! !N!0167 ! !20060824!20070824!020205527!073871048!043271568!N!LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INC !2701 LIBERTY PARKWAY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!20588!139!37!ELIZABETH CITY COAST!PASQ… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for maintenance and repair of aircraft structural components. 2. The contract value of $18.4M represents a significant investment in fleet readiness. 3. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for this service. 4. Performance period is relatively short, indicating a focused scope of work. 5. The contractor, Lear Siegler Services, Inc., has a track record in aerospace support. 6. Geographic location of service delivery is Elizabeth City, North Carolina.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $18.4 million for aircraft structural component repair appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized maintenance services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for depot-level maintenance and repair of aircraft components is necessary for a definitive value assessment. The 'time and materials' pricing structure can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not closely managed, but it also allows flexibility for unforeseen repair needs. The awarded amount is substantial, suggesting a significant scope of work or complexity.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. The presence of four bids suggests a healthy level of competition for this requirement. A competitive process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government. The specific details of the bidding process, such as the number of proposals received and the evaluation criteria, would provide further insight into the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down prices through market forces and ensures the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force units relying on the structural integrity of their aircraft. Services delivered include maintenance and repair of aircraft structural components, ensuring airworthiness. The geographic impact is centered around Elizabeth City, North Carolina, where the repairs will be performed. Workforce implications include potential job creation or retention for skilled technicians in the aerospace maintenance sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost escalation due to Time and Materials (T&M) contract type if not managed stringently.
Scope definition for 'maintenance and repair' could be broad, requiring clear performance standards.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical structural repairs could pose a risk if performance falters.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
Contractor has experience in aerospace support, indicating a degree of familiarity with the requirements.
Specific location of service delivery may align with existing infrastructure or expertise.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO). The MRO market is a critical component of the defense industrial base, ensuring the operational readiness of military fleets. Spending in this area is often driven by the age of aircraft, operational tempo, and the need to extend the service life of existing platforms. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other contracts for depot-level maintenance, structural repair, and component overhaul across various aircraft types within the DoD.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract was specifically set aside for small businesses. Given the specialized nature of aircraft structural repair and the contract value, it is likely that larger, established aerospace service providers were the primary bidders. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, particularly for specific components or support services, but this would depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan. The overall impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless significant subcontracting is mandated.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contract administration office within the Department of the Air Force. Performance monitoring, quality assurance checks, and financial oversight are standard mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse. The 'time and materials' nature of the contract necessitates close monitoring of labor hours and material costs.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services
Aerospace Component Overhaul
Depot-Level Maintenance
Air Force Readiness Programs
Defense Logistics Agency Support

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials contract type.
Need for robust government oversight to manage labor hours and material costs.
Ensuring consistent quality and adherence to structural repair specifications.
Dependence on contractor's technical expertise for critical structural repairs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.4 million to URS FEDERAL SERVICES INC.. 200610!001400!5700!FA8108!OC-ALC/LAD CFT !F3460197D0423 !A!N! !N!0167 ! !20060824!20070824!020205527!073871048!043271568!N!LEAR SIEGLER SERVICES, INC !2701 LIBERTY PARKWAY !MIDWEST CITY !OK!73110!20588!139!37!ELIZABETH CITY COAST!PASQUOTANK !N CAROLINA!+000004276000!N!N!000000000000!J015!MAINT & REPAIR OF EQ/AIRCRAFT STRUCTURAL COMPS !A1A!AIRFRAMES AND SPARES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !336413!E! !5!B!M! !A! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is URS FEDERAL SERVICES INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-07-07. End: 2009-03-02.

What is the historical spending pattern for aircraft structural component repair by the Department of Defense?

Historical spending on aircraft structural component repair by the Department of Defense is substantial and fluctuates based on fleet modernization programs, operational tempo, and the age of aircraft. While specific figures for this exact category are not readily available without deeper analysis, the DoD consistently allocates billions annually to aircraft sustainment, which includes maintenance, repair, and overhaul services. This spending is influenced by factors such as the number of aircraft in the inventory, their deployment status, and the complexity of required repairs. For instance, major depot-level maintenance events, which often involve structural repairs, can cost millions per aircraft. Analyzing trends over the past decade would reveal patterns related to specific aircraft platforms (e.g., fighters, bombers, transport aircraft) and the types of repairs most frequently undertaken, such as fatigue, corrosion, or damage repair.

How does the awarded price compare to similar contracts for aircraft structural repair?

Comparing the $18.4 million award to similar contracts requires access to a comprehensive database of past procurements for aircraft structural repair. Without direct comparable data, a preliminary assessment suggests the value is significant, indicating a substantial scope of work or a complex repair requirement. Factors influencing price include the type of aircraft, the extent of structural damage, the specific components involved (e.g., fuselage, wings, tail), and the labor rates at the repair facility. Contracts for depot-level maintenance, which often encompass structural integrity, can range from a few million to tens of millions of dollars depending on the aircraft program and the duration of the maintenance period. A detailed comparison would involve analyzing contract type, duration, specific services rendered, and the procuring agency.

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

Key performance indicators (KPIs) for a contract focused on aircraft structural component repair typically revolve around quality, timeliness, and cost control. Specific KPIs might include: 1. On-Time Delivery: Percentage of repairs completed within the scheduled timeframe. 2. Quality Acceptance Rate: Percentage of repairs meeting all specifications and quality standards upon inspection, minimizing rework. 3. Technical Performance: Adherence to engineering specifications and repair procedures. 4. Cost Performance: Management of labor hours and material costs within the estimated budget, especially critical for Time and Materials contracts. Performance measurement is usually conducted through regular progress reports submitted by the contractor, government inspections and quality assurance surveillance, and potentially through metrics tracked in government maintenance databases. The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) plays a crucial role in monitoring these KPIs.

What is the track record of Lear Siegler Services, Inc. in performing similar defense contracts?

Lear Siegler Services, Inc. (LSSI), now part of QinetiQ North America, has a significant track record in providing support services to the U.S. military, including maintenance, logistics, and technical support. Their experience often spans various platforms and operational environments. For defense contracts, LSSI has historically been involved in areas such as aircraft maintenance, ground support equipment, and facility operations. Assessing their specific performance on aircraft structural repair contracts would require reviewing past contract awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any documented issues or successes. Their long-standing presence in the defense sector suggests a familiarity with government contracting processes and requirements, though the specifics of their performance on structurally intensive repair work would need detailed verification.

What are the potential risks associated with the 'Time and Materials' contract type for this service?

The 'Time and Materials' (T&M) contract type, used here, presents inherent risks primarily related to cost control. Unlike fixed-price contracts, T&M agreements reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours at specified rates and for the actual cost of materials. This structure can lead to cost uncertainty for the government, as the final price is not predetermined. Key risks include: 1. Cost Overruns: If the scope of work expands, or if labor hours are not efficiently managed, costs can escalate beyond initial estimates. 2. Contractor Incentive: There may be less incentive for the contractor to control costs or expedite work compared to fixed-price arrangements. 3. Monitoring Burden: The government must diligently monitor labor hours, material costs, and the necessity of the work performed to ensure fair pricing and prevent overcharging. Effective oversight, including detailed record-keeping and regular audits, is crucial to mitigate these risks.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: AECOM Global II, LLC (UEI: 043271568)

Address: 175 ADMIRAL COCHRANE DR, ANNAPOLIS, MD, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,367,654

Exercised Options: $18,367,654

Current Obligation: $18,367,654

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: F3460197D0423

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline