Raytheon Company awarded $58.7M for aviation training services, with a significant portion allocated to Florida

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $58,687,531 ($58.7M)

Contractor: Raytheon Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-05-01

End Date: 2017-10-31

Contract Duration: 548 days

Daily Burn Rate: $107.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF AVIATION TRAINING SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: ORLANDO, ORANGE County, FLORIDA, 32826

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $58.7 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF AVIATION TRAINING SERVICES Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the fixed-price nature of the contract and the specialized services provided. 2. Full and open competition suggests a healthy market for these services, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. Performance risk is mitigated by the firm-fixed-price structure, shifting cost overruns to the contractor. 4. The contract duration of 548 days provides a stable period for service delivery. 5. This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, supporting critical defense training needs. 6. The award was made to a large, established defense contractor, indicating a focus on proven capabilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's firm-fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control. Benchmarking against similar aviation training contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the total award amount of $58.7 million over approximately 18 months suggests a substantial investment in specialized training capabilities. The provided benchmark of $107,094 (likely a per-period or per-unit cost) needs further context to be fully assessed, but it appears within a plausible range for complex defense training.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. This competitive process is designed to ensure the government receives the best value by leveraging market forces. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation implies a robust competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market pressure and encouraging innovation among contractors.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are Department of the Army personnel requiring advanced aviation training. The services delivered are critical for maintaining pilot proficiency and operational readiness in aviation units. The contract has a geographic impact primarily in Florida, where the training services are likely conducted. Workforce implications include the employment of skilled instructors, support staff, and aviation professionals by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if training requirements are not clearly defined and managed.
Dependence on a single large contractor could limit future flexibility or introduce vendor lock-in.
Ensuring consistent quality of training across all modules and instructors requires diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive environment that should yield good value.
Award to a reputable contractor with demonstrated experience in defense services.
Contract duration allows for sustained service delivery and planning.

Sector Analysis

The aviation training sector within defense is a critical component of military readiness, encompassing simulation, flight instruction, and maintenance training. This contract fits within the broader engineering and professional services market supporting the Department of Defense. Spending in this area is often driven by the need to maintain complex aircraft fleets and highly skilled personnel. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale training contracts for pilots, aircrews, and maintenance technicians across various military branches.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. Given the large contract value and the nature of specialized aviation training, it is likely that the prime contractor, Raytheon Company, is a large business. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but they are not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on the extent of any subcontracting awarded.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract type, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific performance metrics may not always be publicly disclosed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Defense Training Services
Aviation Support Services
Military Pilot Training
Engineering Services Contracts
Department of Defense Major Contracts

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Performance Risk
Cost Overruns (mitigated by FFP)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $58.7 million to RAYTHEON COMPANY. IGF::OT::IGF AVIATION TRAINING SERVICES

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 $58.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-05-01. End: 2017-10-31.

What is the specific nature of the aviation training provided under this contract?

The contract specifies 'AVIATION TRAINING SERVICES' under the NAICS code 541330 (Engineering Services). While the exact curriculum is not detailed, this typically encompasses a range of training activities for military aviation personnel. This could include flight simulation, actual flight training for pilots and aircrews, ground school instruction on aircraft systems, emergency procedures training, and potentially maintenance training for aviation technicians. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope of services for a set price, implying that the training objectives and deliverables were clearly established during the procurement process.

How does the $58.7 million award compare to historical spending on similar aviation training services by the Department of the Army?

Without access to historical spending databases specifically for aviation training services by the Department of the Army, a direct comparison is difficult. However, $58.7 million represents a significant investment over an 18-month period. Large-scale aviation training programs often involve substantial costs due to the complexity of aircraft, specialized simulators, instructor expertise, and operational requirements. This figure should be viewed in the context of the specific aircraft platforms and skill sets being trained. Annual budgets for aviation training can fluctuate based on operational tempo, new equipment fielding, and strategic priorities, making year-over-year comparisons essential for a comprehensive analysis.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to assess the success of this aviation training contract?

Key performance indicators for aviation training contracts typically focus on measurable outcomes related to pilot and crew proficiency, safety, and operational readiness. Common KPIs might include: student pass rates for training modules, simulator hours completed versus planned, flight hours logged, adherence to safety protocols during training, instructor performance evaluations, and timely completion of training schedules. For this specific contract, the firm-fixed-price structure implies that the contractor is incentivized to meet these performance standards to receive full payment. The government would likely have quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs) in place to monitor these KPIs.

What is Raytheon Company's track record in delivering aviation training services to the U.S. military?

Raytheon Company, now part of RTX, has a long and extensive history of providing defense and aerospace services, including training solutions, to the U.S. military and allied nations. They are a major defense contractor with significant expertise in areas such as advanced simulation, electronic warfare, and integrated training systems. Their portfolio often includes developing and delivering complex training programs for various platforms, from aircraft to missile systems. While specific details of past aviation training contracts would require further research, Raytheon's overall profile suggests a strong capability and established track record in supporting military training requirements.

Are there any identified risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Potential risks for an aviation training contract include the complexity of the training curriculum, the need for highly specialized instructors, potential for equipment downtime (e.g., simulators), and ensuring the training remains relevant to evolving operational needs. The firm-fixed-price contract mitigates financial risk for the government by capping costs. Mitigation for operational risks would involve robust contract management, including regular performance reviews, quality assurance checks, and contingency planning for equipment maintenance or instructor availability. The contractor's experience and the competitive bidding process also serve as risk-reduction factors, suggesting a selection of a capable provider.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp

Address: 2603 CHALLENGER CT STE150, ORLANDO, FL, 32826

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $58,687,531

Exercised Options: $58,687,531

Current Obligation: $58,687,531

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W900KK07D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline