DOJ's $42.1M aviation support contract awarded to Vertex Aerospace LLC for DEA operations

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $42,113,026 ($42.1M)

Contractor: Vertex Aerospace LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2025-01-01

End Date: 2026-12-31

Contract Duration: 729 days

Daily Burn Rate: $57.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TOTAL AVIATION SUPPORT SERVICES - FORT WORTH, TX

Place of Performance

Location: MADISON, MADISON County, MISSISSIPPI, 39110

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $42.1 million to VERTEX AEROSPACE LLC for work described as: TOTAL AVIATION SUPPORT SERVICES - FORT WORTH, TX Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. Vertex Aerospace LLC, the awardee, has a track record that warrants examination for performance history. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can incentivize cost overruns if not managed closely. 4. The duration of 729 days indicates a significant, ongoing need for aviation support services. 5. The contract is for aviation support services, a critical function for agencies like the DEA. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336411 points to aircraft manufacturing, which may be a proxy for the type of specialized support required.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $42.1 million contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable service contracts. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure means the government pays the contractor's costs plus a fixed fee, which can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if cost controls are not robust. Further analysis would require comparing the fixed fee and estimated costs against industry standards for similar aviation support services and assessing the contractor's historical performance on similar contracts to gauge efficiency and value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific contract. While two bidders are better than one, a higher number of bidders typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government. The specific details of the bidding process, including the number of proposals received and the evaluation criteria, would provide further insight into the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging lower bids and better value. However, with only two bidders, there is a risk that the competition may not have been as intense as it could have been, potentially impacting the final price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), which will receive essential aviation support services. These services are critical for the DEA's law enforcement and counter-narcotics operations, potentially impacting national security. The geographic impact is centered around Fort Worth, Texas, where the contract is based, likely supporting local employment in the aerospace sector. The contract supports the aviation sector workforce, potentially involving skilled technicians, mechanics, and support staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type can lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may not have yielded the most competitive pricing.
The NAICS code 336411 (Aircraft Manufacturing) might indicate a scope broader than typical support services, requiring careful oversight.
Contract duration of 729 days requires sustained performance monitoring.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Small business participation is not explicitly mentioned, raising questions about subcontracting opportunities.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, ensuring a broad solicitation.
Vertex Aerospace LLC is the awardee, suggesting they met the government's requirements.
The contract is for essential aviation support services for a critical agency (DEA).
The contract has a defined period of performance, allowing for structured oversight.
The fixed fee component of the CPFF contract provides some cost predictability.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense industry is characterized by complex supply chains and specialized technical requirements. This contract falls within the aviation support services segment, which is a crucial component of national defense and law enforcement operations. The NAICS code 336411, typically associated with aircraft manufacturing, suggests that the services may involve specialized maintenance, repair, or modification of aircraft, rather than just general support. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific nature of the aviation support provided, but contracts for aircraft maintenance and modification can range from millions to billions of dollars.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This means that large businesses were eligible to bid and likely dominated the competition. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without specific set-aside goals or subcontracting requirements, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract is likely minimal, though large prime contractors may still engage small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily fall under the Department of Justice and the Drug Enforcement Administration. As a Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract, rigorous financial oversight is crucial to ensure that costs are reasonable and allocable, and that the fixed fee is justified. The contract's performance will likely be monitored through regular progress reports, site visits, and performance reviews. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of key performance indicators and cost breakdowns, though such details are not always readily available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

DEA Aviation Division Operations
Federal Law Enforcement Aviation Support
Aircraft Maintenance and Repair Services
Department of Justice Procurement

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type requires close monitoring.
Limited competition (2 bidders) may impact price discovery.
NAICS code mismatch requires clarification on contract scope.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting goals.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $42.1 million to VERTEX AEROSPACE LLC. TOTAL AVIATION SUPPORT SERVICES - FORT WORTH, TX

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VERTEX AEROSPACE LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Drug Enforcement Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $42.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-01-01. End: 2026-12-31.

What is Vertex Aerospace LLC's track record with government aviation contracts, particularly Cost Plus Fixed Fee agreements?

Vertex Aerospace LLC has a history of performing aviation-related services for government entities. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts, especially those utilizing a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure, is crucial. CPFF contracts require careful management to control costs, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable expenses plus a predetermined profit. A review of Vertex Aerospace's past CPFF contracts would reveal their ability to manage costs effectively, meet performance deadlines, and maintain quality standards. Information on contract modifications, overruns, and any past performance issues or commendations would provide valuable context for assessing their reliability and value proposition for this DEA contract.

How does the $42.1 million cost compare to similar aviation support contracts awarded by the DEA or other federal agencies?

Benchmarking the $42.1 million cost requires identifying comparable contracts for aviation support services, considering factors like the type of aircraft, scope of services (maintenance, repair, modification, logistics), contract duration, and geographic location. Without specific details on the services rendered under this contract, a precise comparison is difficult. However, federal contract databases can be queried for similar procurements. For instance, contracts for large-scale aircraft depot maintenance or specialized avionics upgrades can easily run into tens of millions of dollars. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure also means the final cost could fluctuate based on actual expenses, making direct comparisons to fixed-price contracts less straightforward. A thorough analysis would involve looking at the 'fixed fee' component as a percentage of estimated costs and comparing that to industry norms.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract for aviation support services?

The primary risks with a CPFF contract for aviation support services revolve around cost control and potential for cost overruns. While the 'fixed fee' provides a predictable profit margin for the contractor, the 'cost plus' element means the government bears the risk of actual expenses. If the contractor does not have robust internal controls or if unforeseen technical challenges arise, costs can escalate beyond initial estimates. For aviation, this could involve unexpected parts failures, complex repairs, or extended labor hours. Effective oversight by the contracting agency is paramount to scrutinize incurred costs, ensure they are reasonable and allocable, and prevent scope creep that inflates expenses. The government must also ensure the contractor has strong incentives to be efficient, as the fixed fee does not directly increase with costs.

How effective is the 'full and open competition' process likely to be with only two bidders for this contract?

While 'full and open competition' is the preferred method for ensuring broad market access, having only two bidders suggests that the competition may not have been as robust as ideal. A higher number of bidders typically drives down prices through increased market pressure and allows the government to select from a wider range of capabilities and pricing structures. With only two offers, the government has limited options, and the risk of one bidder having a significant advantage (e.g., in pricing, technical approach, or past performance) increases. This scenario could potentially lead to a higher-than-expected price or a less optimal technical solution compared to a more competitive scenario. Further analysis would involve examining the bid proposals and evaluation process to understand why only two firms participated.

What are the historical spending patterns for aviation support services within the Department of Justice or the DEA?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for aviation support services within the Department of Justice (DOJ) and specifically the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is essential for context. This involves examining previous contract awards for similar services, including the number of contracts, their values, the types of services procured, and the contractors involved. Understanding trends in spending can reveal whether this $42.1 million contract represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in aviation support. It can also highlight any shifts in contracting strategies, such as a move towards or away from CPFF contracts or changes in competition levels. Such historical data provides a baseline against which the current contract's value and necessity can be assessed.

What are the implications of the NAICS code 336411 (Aircraft Manufacturing) for a contract described as 'Aviation Support Services'?

The assignment of NAICS code 336411, which pertains to 'Aircraft Manufacturing,' to a contract for 'Aviation Support Services' is noteworthy and requires clarification. Typically, support services might fall under codes related to maintenance, repair, or logistics. The 'Aircraft Manufacturing' code suggests that the scope of this contract might extend beyond routine maintenance and could involve significant modifications, assembly, or even production-related activities for aircraft. This could imply a need for specialized engineering, design, or fabrication capabilities. It raises questions about whether the contractor is manufacturing components or entire aircraft, or if the code is being used broadly to encompass complex, integrated support that borders on manufacturing processes. Understanding this distinction is critical for assessing the contract's true scope, risks, and appropriate pricing.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing

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

Solicitation ID: 15DDHQ24R00000041

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 555 INDUSTRIAL DR S, MADISON, MS, 39110

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $171,431,576

Exercised Options: $171,431,576

Current Obligation: $42,113,026

Actual Outlays: $25,649,950

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 6

Total Subaward Amount: $625,203

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline