Agriculture's $5.4M fixed-price contract for aerial attack services awarded to Gold Aero Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $5,395,816 ($5.4M)

Contractor: Gold Aero Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2022-04-12

End Date: 2026-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,724 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT

Sector: Other

Official Description: 2022 NATIONAL AIR ATTACK, LIGHT FIXED WING ATGS BASE AND 4 OPTION YEARS REDMOND

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, SNOHOMISH County, WASHINGTON, 98223

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $5.4 million to GOLD AERO INC. for work described as: 2022 NATIONAL AIR ATTACK, LIGHT FIXED WING ATGS BASE AND 4 OPTION YEARS REDMOND Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in aerial firefighting capabilities. 2. Fixed-price structure with economic price adjustment aims to manage cost fluctuations. 3. Competition was conducted after exclusion of sources, suggesting specific justifications. 4. Contract duration of nearly five years indicates a long-term need for these services. 5. Performance is geographically focused on Washington state. 6. The service category, Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation, is critical for remote operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable service rates. The fixed-price with economic price adjustment structure can lead to cost overruns if not carefully managed. The total contract value of $5.4 million over nearly five years suggests a moderate annual spend for specialized aerial support.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This indicates that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded, potentially due to specific requirements or prior performance. The exact number of bidders and the rationale for exclusion are not detailed, making a full assessment of price discovery difficult.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price than if all potential sources were considered. Taxpayers may not have received the full benefit of competitive bidding.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the US Forest Service and potentially other agencies relying on aerial support for wildfire suppression and land management. Services delivered include nonscheduled chartered passenger air transportation, essential for deploying personnel and equipment to remote or inaccessible areas. Geographic impact is concentrated in Washington state, supporting critical environmental and public safety operations. Workforce implications include support for pilots, ground crews, and emergency response teams.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential price inflation and reduced innovation.
The 'economic price adjustment' clause introduces uncertainty regarding final contract cost.
Lack of detailed justification for excluding sources hinders transparency.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a single entity suggests specialized capabilities.
Long-term contract duration provides stability for service provision.
Fixed-price element offers some cost predictability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aviation services sector, specifically focusing on chartered air transportation for government operations. The market for such specialized services is often niche, with a limited number of providers possessing the necessary certifications, equipment, and experience. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other government contracts for aerial firefighting, surveillance, or logistical support in similar geographic regions.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary focus, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) and 'sb' (small business) flags are false. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary contractor is expected to perform the majority of the work, and the impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless Gold Aero Inc. itself utilizes small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the US Department of Agriculture's Forest Service contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price structure, though the economic price adjustment requires careful monitoring. Transparency is partially addressed through contract award databases, but detailed justifications for competition exclusions and performance reviews are not publicly detailed.

Related Government Programs

Wildfire Suppression Services
Aviation Support Contracts
Department of Agriculture Procurement
Forest Service Operations
Chartered Air Services

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact value for money.
Economic price adjustment introduces cost uncertainty.
Justification for excluding sources requires scrutiny.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $5.4 million to GOLD AERO INC.. 2022 NATIONAL AIR ATTACK, LIGHT FIXED WING ATGS BASE AND 4 OPTION YEARS REDMOND

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GOLD AERO INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Forest Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $5.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-04-12. End: 2026-12-31.

What is the track record of Gold Aero Inc. in fulfilling government contracts, particularly for aerial attack services?

Information regarding Gold Aero Inc.'s specific track record with government contracts, especially for aerial attack services, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract completion history, and any documented issues or commendations from previous federal awards. Without this, it's difficult to gauge their reliability and past success in similar operations. Further research into federal procurement databases and agency performance reports would be necessary to establish a detailed performance history.

How does the pricing structure of this contract compare to similar aerial support contracts awarded by the Forest Service or other agencies?

The provided data includes a fixed price with economic price adjustment (EPA) structure. To compare pricing, one would need to identify comparable contracts for nonscheduled chartered passenger air transportation or similar aerial support services, ideally within the same geographic region (Washington) and for similar operational durations. The EPA component introduces variability, making direct price-per-hour or price-per-mile comparisons complex. Benchmarking would involve analyzing the base fixed price against market rates and assessing the historical impact of EPA adjustments on similar contracts to understand potential cost escalations.

What are the specific risks associated with the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award method for this contract?

The primary risk associated with 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' is the potential for reduced competition, which can lead to higher prices and less innovation compared to true full and open competition. If the exclusion of sources was not adequately justified or if it inadvertently limited the pool of qualified bidders, the government may not have secured the best value. This method requires robust justification to ensure it serves the government's best interest and doesn't stifle market competition unnecessarily. Transparency regarding the reasons for exclusion is crucial for assessing this risk.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the effectiveness of the services provided under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for aerial support services, KPIs might include on-time availability of aircraft, adherence to flight schedules, safety incident rates, fuel efficiency, and successful completion of mission objectives (e.g., timely deployment of personnel). The effectiveness of the services would be measured against these metrics, likely reviewed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) throughout the contract period. Without explicit KPIs, assessing program effectiveness relies on broader operational outcomes.

How has the Forest Service's spending on nonscheduled chartered passenger air transportation evolved over the past five years, and where does this contract fit in?

Historical spending data for the Forest Service on nonscheduled chartered passenger air transportation is not provided. To analyze this, one would need to access historical contract databases (like FPDS or USASpending.gov) and filter for the relevant NAICS code (481211) and agency. This contract, valued at approximately $5.4 million over nearly five years, represents a significant, but likely not dominant, portion of annual spending if the agency frequently utilizes such services. Understanding the trend would reveal if this award is part of an increasing, decreasing, or stable spending pattern for these types of services.

What is the potential impact of the economic price adjustment (EPA) on the final cost of this contract, given current economic conditions?

The economic price adjustment (EPA) clause allows for modifications to the contract price based on fluctuations in specified economic factors, such as fuel costs, labor rates, or material prices. The potential impact on the final cost depends heavily on the specific indices tied to the EPA and the volatility of those indices. Given current economic conditions, which may include inflation and supply chain disruptions, the EPA could lead to a notable increase in the contract's final price above the initial fixed amount. Careful monitoring and negotiation of EPA adjustments are critical to control costs.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Nonscheduled Air Transportation › Nonscheduled Chartered Passenger Air Transportation

Product/Service Code: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT › NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVERVAT SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT (K)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 18914 59TH DR NE UNIT D, ARLINGTON, WA, 98223

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $5,395,816

Exercised Options: $5,395,816

Current Obligation: $5,395,816

Actual Outlays: $4,232,474

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 1202SA22T9115

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline