Agriculture's $37.6M aircraft parts contract with Aero Union Corporation shows long-term engagement with a single vendor

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $37,579,757 ($37.6M)

Contractor: Aero Union Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2004-01-23

End Date: 2014-01-16

Contract Duration: 3,646 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: AIRBORN FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM (AFFS) THIS CORRECTION IS TO CORRECT THE WAY THIS CONTRACT IS INPUT INTO FPDS FROM 11/2000. THIS ENTRY WILL ACT AS THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATING ENTRY, AS THIS CONTRACT DIDN'T MIGRATE FROM SF-279 SYSTEM. EACH MODIFICATION WILL THEN BE ADDED IN. DATES HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED FOR FPDS SYSTEM TO ACCEPT. THIS CONTRACT WAS PRIOR TO FPDS-NG AND WOULD NOT ACCEPT A 2000 YEAR DATE.

Place of Performance

Location: CHICO, BUTTE County, CALIFORNIA, 95973

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $37.6 million to AERO UNION CORPORATION for work described as: AIRBORN FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM (AFFS) THIS CORRECTION IS TO CORRECT THE WAY THIS CONTRACT IS INPUT INTO FPDS FROM 11/2000. THIS ENTRY WILL ACT AS THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATING ENTRY, AS THIS CONTRACT DIDN'T MIGRATE FROM SF-279 SYSTEM. EACH MODIFICATION WILL THEN BE ADDED IN. DATES H… Key points: 1. The contract's extended duration suggests a stable, long-term relationship with the awarded vendor. 2. Aero Union Corporation has been the sole provider for this specific aircraft system over a significant period. 3. The contract's initial data entry faced system limitations, requiring date manipulation for FPDS compliance. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates that the price was set at the time of award. 5. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, despite the long-term single-vendor relationship. 6. The absence of small business set-asides suggests the primary contractor is not a small business.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $37.6 million over approximately 10 years represents a significant investment. Benchmarking this value is challenging without specific details on the 'AIRBORN FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM (AFFS)' and its components. However, the long duration and single-vendor award under full and open competition warrant scrutiny to ensure continued value for money. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost certainty but may limit flexibility if market conditions change significantly.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded through full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. However, the fact that Aero Union Corporation has held this contract for an extended period, as implied by the long duration and the nature of the correction entry, suggests a potential for vendor lock-in or a highly specialized product where few competitors exist. The initial competition likely established the baseline pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the initial competitive process which should have secured a fair price. However, the long-term nature of the award necessitates ongoing vigilance to ensure that prices remain competitive throughout the contract's life, especially if follow-on contracts are considered.

Public Impact

This contract supports the U.S. Forest Service's aerial firefighting capabilities, crucial for national wildfire suppression efforts. The system likely ensures the availability of specialized aircraft parts necessary for maintaining critical firefighting assets. The geographic impact is national, as wildfires can occur across various regions of the United States. The contract supports jobs within the aerospace manufacturing and maintenance sectors, specifically related to aircraft parts.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in due to long-term sole-source-like performance despite initial full and open competition.
Lack of transparency regarding the specific system and its components makes independent value assessment difficult.
System entry issues in FPDS suggest potential data integrity concerns for historical contract analysis.
The extended contract duration without clear re-competition points raises questions about ongoing market competitiveness.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating an initial competitive process.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract supports a critical national security function: wildfire suppression.
The vendor has a long history with this specific system, suggesting expertise.

Sector Analysis

The aerospace parts manufacturing sector is highly specialized, with significant barriers to entry due to technological expertise and regulatory compliance. Contracts for specialized aircraft components, especially for critical government functions like firefighting, often involve long-term relationships. The total value of this contract, $37.6 million, falls within the range of significant federal procurements for specialized equipment. Comparable spending might be found in other defense or emergency response aircraft sustainment contracts.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary consideration for this contract, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) and 'sb' (small business) flags are false. This suggests the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses, and Aero Union Corporation is likely a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, but for a specialized parts contract, it's possible that smaller, niche suppliers could be involved if Aero Union utilizes them.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the U.S. Forest Service's contracting officers and program managers. The contract's long duration and the initial data entry issues highlight the importance of diligent oversight to ensure performance, compliance, and continued value. Transparency is somewhat limited by the specialized nature of the system and the historical data entry challenges. Inspector General involvement would typically occur if specific allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Wildfire Suppression Equipment Procurement
Aviation Support Services
Department of Agriculture - Forest Service Contracts
Aerospace Parts Manufacturing Contracts
Federal Aircraft Fleet Sustainment

Risk Flags

Potential data integrity issues due to date manipulation for FPDS entry.
Long-term single-vendor performance raises questions about sustained competition.
Lack of detailed system information hinders independent value assessment.
Contract duration exceeds typical procurement cycles, suggesting potential for vendor lock-in.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $37.6 million to AERO UNION CORPORATION. AIRBORN FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM (AFFS) THIS CORRECTION IS TO CORRECT THE WAY THIS CONTRACT IS INPUT INTO FPDS FROM 11/2000. THIS ENTRY WILL ACT AS THE ORIGINAL OBLIGATING ENTRY, AS THIS CONTRACT DIDN'T MIGRATE FROM SF-279 SYSTEM. EACH MODIFICATION WILL THEN BE ADDED IN. DATES HAVE BEEN MANIPULATED FOR FPDS SYSTEM TO ACCEPT. THIS CONTRACT WAS PRIOR TO FPDS-NG AND WOULD NOT ACCEPT A 2000 YEAR DATE.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AERO UNION CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Forest Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $37.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-01-23. End: 2014-01-16.

What specific components or systems does the 'AIRBORN FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM (AFFS)' encompass, and how has its functionality evolved over the contract's lifespan?

The provided data does not detail the specific components or functionalities of the 'AIRBORN FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM (AFFS)'. The contract description focuses on the administrative correction for its entry into the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). To understand its evolution, one would need to access the contract's modification history and technical specifications. Given its purpose, it likely involves specialized tanks, pumps, retardant delivery systems, or related aircraft modifications for aerial firefighting. The long duration (2004-2014) suggests potential upgrades or adaptations to meet changing firefighting needs or technological advancements, but this cannot be confirmed from the current data.

How did the 'full and open competition' process result in a single vendor, Aero Union Corporation, dominating this contract for over a decade?

While the contract was initially awarded under 'full and open competition,' the long duration and apparent single-vendor performance suggest that Aero Union Corporation may possess unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or specialized expertise essential for the AIRBORN FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM (AFFS). This could mean that after the initial competition, subsequent needs or modifications were best met by the incumbent, or that the market for such specialized systems is inherently limited. It's also possible that follow-on contracts or modifications were awarded without full re-competition if justified by specific circumstances, such as technical data rights or unique system integration requirements. Further investigation into the modification history and justification for continued sole-source-like performance would be needed.

What were the specific challenges encountered during the initial data entry into FPDS, and what is the impact of the 'manipulated dates' on historical analysis?

The data indicates that the contract predates the FPDS-NG system's ability to accept dates from the year 2000. This necessitated 'manipulated dates' for the system to process the original obligating entry. The primary challenge was the system's technical limitation with older date formats. The impact of 'manipulated dates' on historical analysis is significant; it means that the recorded start and end dates in FPDS may not reflect the true chronological order or duration of the contract without careful cross-referencing with other documentation. This could complicate trend analysis, performance period calculations, and comparisons with other contracts if not properly accounted for.

Can the $37.6 million contract value be benchmarked against similar aerial firefighting equipment contracts awarded by the government?

Benchmarking the $37.6 million contract value for the AIRBORN FIRE FIGHTING SYSTEM (AFFS) against similar contracts is difficult without more specific details about the system's capabilities, components, and the scope of work. Aerial firefighting systems can range widely in complexity and cost, from modular retardant delivery systems to integrated aircraft modifications. To perform a meaningful benchmark, one would need to identify contracts for comparable systems (e.g., other large air tanker modifications, specialized fire-retardant delivery systems) awarded around the same period or more recently, considering factors like aircraft type, capacity, and technological sophistication. The long duration (2004-2014) also implies a value spread over time, making direct comparison to shorter-term contracts challenging.

What is the typical lifespan and replacement cycle for specialized aerial firefighting systems like the AFFS, and does this contract align with those cycles?

The typical lifespan and replacement cycle for specialized aerial firefighting systems can vary significantly based on the technology, maintenance, and operational intensity. However, aircraft and their complex systems often have lifespans measured in decades, with major overhauls and component replacements occurring periodically. A contract running from 2004 to 2014 (approximately 10 years of performance) for a system's sustainment or initial fielding could align with a significant phase of its operational life. Whether it aligns with a typical replacement cycle depends on the system's design and the Forest Service's fleet management strategy. Often, such systems are upgraded or integrated into newer platforms rather than being entirely replaced if the core aircraft remains viable.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: AEROSPACE CRAFT COMPONENTS AND ACCESSORIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: RFP490002

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 100 LOCKHEED AVE, CHICO, CA, 01

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $37,579,757

Exercised Options: $37,579,757

Current Obligation: $37,579,757

Timeline