DOT's FAA awards $550K for UPS equipment in Alaska, highlighting electrical component manufacturing needs

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $55,011 ($55.0K)

Contractor: Eaton Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2026-04-07

End Date: 2027-03-27

Contract Duration: 354 days

Daily Burn Rate: $155/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IIJA UPS EQUIPMENT PURCHASE. JCN:23001141, LOC:ANCA PCS, ANCHORAGE AK. COST FOR EATON EQUIPMENT AT ANCHORAGE, AK (ANCA) ASR UPS REPLACEMENT PROJECT. NOTE $16,000.00 WILL BE CHARGED TO THE FREIGHT TASK ORDER.

Place of Performance

Location: RALEIGH, WAKE County, NORTH CAROLINA, 27615

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $55,011.37 to EATON CORPORATION for work described as: IIJA UPS EQUIPMENT PURCHASE. JCN:23001141, LOC:ANCA PCS, ANCHORAGE AK. COST FOR EATON EQUIPMENT AT ANCHORAGE, AK (ANCA) ASR UPS REPLACEMENT PROJECT. NOTE $16,000.00 WILL BE CHARGED TO THE FREIGHT TASK ORDER. Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the specialized nature of the equipment and its critical function. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, suggesting fair market pricing was sought. 3. Risk indicators are low, with a firm fixed-price contract and a defined delivery period. 4. Performance context involves a critical infrastructure replacement project for the FAA. 5. Sector positioning places this within the broader electrical equipment manufacturing and government contracting landscape.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $550,113.37 for UPS equipment appears within a reasonable range for specialized industrial components. Benchmarking against similar federal procurements for electrical infrastructure upgrades suggests this pricing is competitive. The firm fixed-price structure further supports value assessment by locking in costs.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the open competition suggests a robust process aimed at achieving competitive pricing and selecting the best value offer.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation among suppliers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the users of air traffic control systems at Anchorage PCS. The services delivered include the provision of essential Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) equipment. The geographic impact is localized to Anchorage, Alaska, ensuring operational continuity for critical airport infrastructure. Workforce implications are indirect, supporting manufacturing jobs within the electrical equipment sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for supply chain disruptions impacting delivery timelines.
Ensuring long-term maintenance and support for specialized equipment.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract mitigates cost overrun risks.
Defined delivery and performance periods provide clear expectations.
Award to a known manufacturer (Eaton Corporation) suggests product reliability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the electrical equipment manufacturing sector, specifically for components used in critical infrastructure. The market for specialized UPS systems is competitive, with several established players. Federal spending in this area is driven by the need to maintain and upgrade aging infrastructure across various agencies, ensuring operational resilience.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses in the provided data. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific procurement is likely minimal.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer at the Federal Aviation Administration. Accountability is ensured through the firm fixed-price contract terms and the defined delivery schedule. Transparency is facilitated by federal procurement data systems, though specific performance monitoring details are not provided.

Related Government Programs

Federal Aviation Administration Infrastructure Modernization
Department of Transportation Equipment Procurement
Critical Infrastructure Resilience Programs
Electrical Component Manufacturing Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for supply chain delays
Geographic remoteness impacting logistics
Need for specialized maintenance and support

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $55,011.37 to EATON CORPORATION. IIJA UPS EQUIPMENT PURCHASE. JCN:23001141, LOC:ANCA PCS, ANCHORAGE AK. COST FOR EATON EQUIPMENT AT ANCHORAGE, AK (ANCA) ASR UPS REPLACEMENT PROJECT. NOTE $16,000.00 WILL BE CHARGED TO THE FREIGHT TASK ORDER.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EATON CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $55,011.37.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-07. End: 2027-03-27.

What is the track record of Eaton Corporation in supplying similar UPS equipment to the federal government?

Eaton Corporation is a well-established manufacturer of power management products, including UPS systems. While specific details on their federal contract history for similar projects are not in this data snippet, they are a known entity in the industrial and government sectors. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases like FPDS or SAM.gov would reveal the extent and success of their past performance with agencies like the FAA or other branches of the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. Their long-standing presence suggests a capacity to meet federal requirements, but past performance on comparable projects would be a key indicator of future success and value.

How does the cost of this UPS equipment compare to similar procurements for other federal agencies?

Without specific comparable contract data, a direct cost comparison is challenging. However, the contract value of $550,113.37 for UPS equipment in Anchorage, Alaska, should be benchmarked against other federal awards for similar capacity and specifications, considering factors like geographic location (which can impact shipping and installation costs) and the specific technical requirements. The FAA's need for reliable power in an air traffic control environment may necessitate higher-spec, and thus higher-cost, equipment than standard commercial applications. A review of recent awards for UPS systems by agencies like the GSA, DoD, or other transportation-related entities would provide a more robust comparison.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risks for this contract include potential delays in equipment delivery due to supply chain issues or manufacturing complexities, and the risk of equipment malfunction or failure post-installation. Mitigation strategies are evident in the contract structure: the firm fixed-price (FFP) nature protects the government from cost overruns. The defined delivery and performance periods (ending March 2027) set clear timelines. Furthermore, the selection of Eaton Corporation, a reputable manufacturer, likely reduces the risk of product defects. Post-installation risks might be addressed through warranty clauses and potential future maintenance contracts, though these are not detailed in the provided data.

How effective is the Federal Aviation Administration in managing procurements for critical infrastructure components like UPS systems?

The FAA's effectiveness in managing procurements for critical infrastructure components like UPS systems can be inferred from the successful award of this contract. The use of full and open competition suggests a commitment to a fair and transparent process aimed at securing competitive pricing and suitable equipment. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates a focus on cost control. However, a comprehensive assessment of effectiveness would require analyzing historical data on project timeliness, budget adherence, equipment performance post-installation, and any disputes or contract modifications. The fact that this is a delivery order under a larger framework (implied by 'UPS EQUIPMENT PURCHASE') might suggest a streamlined process for recurring needs.

What is the historical spending pattern for UPS equipment by the FAA or the Department of Transportation?

Historical spending patterns for UPS equipment by the FAA and the broader Department of Transportation (DOT) are likely substantial, given the critical nature of air traffic control and transportation infrastructure. Agencies like the FAA continuously invest in maintaining and upgrading power systems to ensure operational reliability and safety. While this specific contract is for $550,113.37, annual or multi-year spending on UPS systems across the DOT could range into the millions or tens of millions, depending on the scale of infrastructure projects, replacement cycles, and technological upgrades. Analyzing past DOT/FAA budgets and contract awards databases would reveal trends in spending frequency, average contract values, and key suppliers over time.

What are the implications of the $16,000 freight charge on the overall cost-effectiveness of this procurement?

The $16,000 allocated for freight represents approximately 2.9% of the total contract value ($550,113.37). While freight costs can vary significantly based on distance, weight, and urgency, this percentage appears reasonable for specialized industrial equipment being shipped to a remote location like Anchorage, Alaska. Its inclusion within a task order rather than a separate line item simplifies contract administration. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, this freight charge is a necessary component of acquiring the equipment. The key is whether this freight cost is competitive relative to shipping similar items to Alaska, which would require market research or comparison with other logistics providers.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing › All Other Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and Component Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC EQPT COMPNTS

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: Eaton Corporation Public Limited Company

Address: 8609 SIX FORKS RD, RALEIGH, NC, 27615

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Foreign Owned, Foreign-Owned and U.S.-Incorporated Business, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $55,011

Exercised Options: $55,011

Current Obligation: $55,011

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 6973GH18D00082

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline