GSA awards $3.4M engineering services contract to BAE Systems for F-15 test program support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,367,800 ($3.4M)

Contractor: BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2021-12-02

End Date: 2026-12-01

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: F15 SPECIALIZED ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR F15 TEST PROGRAM SET MAINTENANCE EO14042

Place of Performance

Location: WARNER ROBINS, HOUSTON County, GEORGIA, 31098

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $3.4 million to BAE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS & SERVICES INC. for work described as: F15 SPECIALIZED ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR F15 TEST PROGRAM SET MAINTENANCE EO14042 Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract is a firm-fixed-price delivery order, providing cost certainty for the government. 3. Services are for specialized engineering and technical support for the F-15 test program. 4. The contract duration is 5 years, indicating a long-term need for these services. 5. The awardee, BAE Systems, is a significant defense contractor, suggesting established capabilities. 6. The contract is not set aside for small businesses, implying larger prime contractors are expected to perform. 7. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541330 points to engineering services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $3.4 million over five years for specialized engineering services appears reasonable, especially considering the critical nature of supporting a major aircraft test program. Benchmarking against similar long-term engineering support contracts for complex defense systems would provide further context. The firm-fixed-price structure helps manage cost risks for the government. Without specific per-unit cost data or detailed scope breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the award to a known entity like BAE Systems suggests a degree of confidence in their ability to deliver at a competitive price.

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 specific number of bidders is not provided, but this procurement method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and innovation. The GSA's Federal Acquisition Service likely managed a robust solicitation process to ensure a fair evaluation of proposals. The open competition suggests that the government sought the best possible technical solution and price from the market.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it maximizes the potential for cost savings through a competitive bidding process, ensuring that the government receives the best value for its investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force and its F-15 program, receiving essential engineering and technical support for testing and maintenance. Services delivered include specialized engineering and technical expertise crucial for the operational readiness and development of the F-15 aircraft. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around F-15 testing facilities, potentially in Georgia (indicated by 'ST: GA') and other relevant military installations. Workforce implications may involve skilled engineers and technicians employed by BAE Systems, contributing to specialized defense industry employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the scope of 'specialized engineering and technical services' is not tightly managed.
Reliance on a single large contractor could limit future competition or flexibility if needs change significantly.
The long duration of the contract may not fully account for evolving technological requirements in aerospace engineering.

Positive Signals

Award to an established contractor like BAE Systems suggests a high likelihood of successful technical execution.
Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability and reduces the government's financial risk.
The use of GSA's Federal Acquisition Service indicates adherence to established procurement best practices.
The contract supports a critical national defense asset, the F-15 aircraft, ensuring its continued operational capability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a significant segment of the professional, scientific, and technical services industry. The aerospace and defense sub-sector, in particular, relies heavily on specialized engineering support for the design, testing, and maintenance of complex military platforms like the F-15. Spending in this area is driven by defense budgets and the need to maintain aging fleets while developing next-generation capabilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other long-term engineering support contracts for major weapon systems.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, as indicated by 'SB: false'. The prime contractor, BAE Systems, is a large defense corporation. This suggests that the scope of work is likely too large or specialized for small business set-asides, or that the government determined that full and open competition among all capable firms, including large businesses, would yield the best value. There may be subcontracting opportunities for small businesses within the performance of this contract, but this is not guaranteed by the contract's structure.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract is likely managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) through its Federal Acquisition Service, which is responsible for managing government-wide acquisition contracts. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price delivery order structure, requiring BAE Systems to deliver specified services within agreed-upon costs. Transparency is facilitated through federal procurement databases like FPDS, where contract awards are recorded. Inspector General jurisdiction would typically fall under the relevant agency overseeing the F-15 program, likely the Department of the Air Force, in coordination with GSA.

Related Government Programs

F-15 Aircraft Sustainment Programs
Aerospace Engineering Services
Defense Test and Evaluation Support
Air Force Weapon System Maintenance Contracts
GSA Federal Supply Schedule Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep
Long-term contract duration
Reliance on a single large contractor

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $3.4 million to BAE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS & SERVICES INC.. F15 SPECIALIZED ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL SERVICES FOR F15 TEST PROGRAM SET MAINTENANCE EO14042

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BAE SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS & SERVICES INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-12-02. End: 2026-12-01.

What is the track record of BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc. in performing similar engineering and technical support contracts for the F-15 program or comparable defense platforms?

BAE Systems Technology Solutions & Services Inc. has a substantial history of providing engineering, technical, and support services to the U.S. Department of Defense, including work related to fighter aircraft programs. While specific details on their F-15 test program maintenance experience require deeper investigation into contract databases, their overall profile as a major defense contractor suggests they possess the requisite expertise and infrastructure. Past performance evaluations on similar contracts would be crucial to assess their reliability and capability in delivering complex technical solutions. Reviewing their performance on prior Air Force contracts, particularly those involving test programs or system sustainment, would offer insights into their ability to meet stringent technical requirements, manage schedules, and control costs effectively.

How does the awarded value of $3.4 million over five years compare to similar engineering support contracts for major military aircraft test programs?

The awarded value of approximately $3.4 million over five years translates to an average annual value of about $680,000. This figure needs to be contextualized against the complexity and scope of 'specialized engineering and technical services' for the F-15 test program. Contracts for supporting major weapon systems can vary significantly based on the level of effort, specific technical requirements, and duration. For instance, contracts involving extensive hardware modifications, advanced simulation development, or large-scale flight testing would command higher values. However, for ongoing maintenance, calibration, data analysis, and specialized technical support within a defined test program, this annual figure might be within a reasonable range. A direct comparison would require identifying contracts with similar NAICS codes (541330), similar agencies (DoD, Air Force), and comparable service scopes for other fighter or bomber aircraft test programs.

What are the key risk indicators associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risk indicators for this contract include the potential for scope creep in 'specialized engineering and technical services,' the long contract duration (5 years) potentially leading to technological obsolescence or changing requirements, and the reliance on a single large contractor (BAE Systems) which could impact future flexibility. Mitigation strategies likely include robust contract management by the GSA and the Air Force, clear definition and monitoring of the Statement of Work (SOW), regular performance reviews, and potentially incorporating contract clauses for change management and technical refresh. The firm-fixed-price nature of the award also mitigates financial risk for the government. Furthermore, BAE Systems' established presence in the defense sector suggests a degree of inherent risk reduction due to their experience and existing infrastructure.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for this specific engineering support requirement?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally effective in ensuring value for money when the scope of work is well-defined and the risks of cost overruns are manageable. For specialized engineering and technical services related to a test program, FFP provides cost certainty to the government, shifting the risk of performance cost overruns to the contractor, BAE Systems. This incentivizes the contractor to manage its resources efficiently and control costs to maximize profit. However, if the scope of 'specialized services' proves more complex or demanding than initially anticipated, the contractor might face challenges meeting the fixed price, potentially impacting the quality or timeliness of delivery, or leading to requests for contract modifications. Effective oversight is crucial to ensure the contractor meets all requirements within the agreed price.

What are the historical spending patterns for engineering and technical services supporting the F-15 program, and how does this award fit within that trend?

Historical spending on F-15 program support, including engineering and technical services, has been substantial and ongoing, reflecting the aircraft's long service life and continuous upgrade requirements. This spending typically fluctuates based on modernization efforts, sustainment needs, and testing protocols for new capabilities or modifications. Awards for such services often go to large, established defense contractors with specialized expertise. This $3.4 million award for test program set maintenance appears to be a component of the broader F-15 sustainment and modernization budget. Its value suggests it addresses a specific, ongoing need rather than a major overhaul or new development, fitting within the pattern of consistent, albeit variable, investment required to maintain the operational readiness and technological relevance of a legacy fighter fleet.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 47QFSA22Q0002

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Ball Corporation

Address: 520 GAITHER RD, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20850

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,733,957

Exercised Options: $3,368,800

Current Obligation: $3,367,800

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00F240CA

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline