DoD's $27.4M Sikorsky contract for aircraft manufacturing shows a high value for money
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $27,415,565 ($27.4M)
Contractor: Sikorsky Support Services Inc
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2008-03-04
End Date: 2008-12-31
Contract Duration: 302 days
Daily Burn Rate: $90.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Defense
Official Description: ORDER AGAINST BASIC
Place of Performance
Location: STRATFORD, FAIRFIELD County, CONNECTICUT, 06614
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $27.4 million to SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES INC for work described as: ORDER AGAINST BASIC Key points: 1. The contract demonstrates strong value for money, with a significant award amount indicating substantial service delivery. 2. Competition dynamics were favorable, with full and open competition after exclusion of sources. 3. Risk indicators appear low, given the firm fixed-price contract type and established contractor. 4. Performance context suggests a focus on aircraft manufacturing, a core defense capability. 5. Sector positioning is within the defense industrial base, specifically supporting Army aviation needs.
Value Assessment
Rating: excellent
The contract's value of $27.4 million for aircraft manufacturing suggests a significant investment in critical defense capabilities. Benchmarking against similar large-scale aircraft production or support contracts would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract generally indicates a predictable cost structure for the government, contributing to its perceived value.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was broad, specific sources may have been excluded based on pre-defined criteria. This suggests a competitive process that aimed to solicit offers from qualified vendors. The number of bidders is not specified, but the designation implies a robust effort to secure the best value.
Taxpayer Impact: This level of competition, even with exclusions, is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it drives down prices and encourages efficiency from potential awardees.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, receiving critical aircraft manufacturing services. Services delivered include the manufacturing or modification of aircraft, essential for military operations. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the contractor's facilities in Connecticut. Workforce implications include employment opportunities within the aerospace and manufacturing sectors.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Positive Signals
- Firm Fixed Price contract type limits cost overrun risk for the government.
- Award to a known entity (Sikorsky) suggests a degree of contractor reliability.
- Full and Open Competition indicates a structured procurement process.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, a critical component of the U.S. industrial base. The market is characterized by high barriers to entry, significant R&D investment, and long-term government procurement cycles. Spending in this sector is heavily influenced by national security priorities and technological advancements. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other large-scale aircraft production or sustainment contracts within the Department of Defense.
Small Business Impact
The contract details do not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions. Given the nature of aircraft manufacturing, it is likely that the prime contractor, Sikorsky, would engage in subcontracting. The extent to which small businesses would participate would depend on Sikorsky's subcontracting plan and the availability of specialized small business capabilities within the supply chain.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified aircraft manufacturing services. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics and oversight reports may not be publicly available.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Aircraft Procurement
- Army Aviation Systems Support
- Aerospace Manufacturing Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for supply chain disruptions impacting delivery schedules.
- Risk of technical challenges in complex aircraft manufacturing processes.
- Need for robust quality assurance to ensure airworthiness and performance.
Tags
defense, department-of-the-army, aircraft-manufacturing, sikorsky-support-services-inc, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, connecticut, large-contract, aviation, manufacturing
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $27.4 million to SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES INC. ORDER AGAINST BASIC
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is SIKORSKY SUPPORT SERVICES INC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $27.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2008-03-04. End: 2008-12-31.
What is Sikorsky Support Services Inc.'s track record with the Department of Defense?
Sikorsky Support Services Inc., a subsidiary of Lockheed Martin, has a long-standing and extensive track record with the Department of Defense, particularly in helicopter manufacturing and support. They are a primary contractor for numerous military aircraft programs, including the Black Hawk and Seahawk families. Their history with the DoD involves delivering complex aviation systems, maintenance, and training services. This specific contract, awarded in 2008, aligns with their core competencies in aircraft manufacturing and support, suggesting a reliable performance history for this type of requirement.
How does the $27.4 million award compare to similar aircraft manufacturing contracts?
The $27.4 million award for this specific contract is a substantial sum, indicative of a significant scope of work in aircraft manufacturing. However, without knowing the exact nature of the aircraft or the specific manufacturing services (e.g., new production, modification, overhaul), direct comparison is challenging. Large-scale military aircraft production contracts can range from tens of millions to billions of dollars. This award appears to be in the mid-to-large range for a specific manufacturing effort or a significant component thereof, rather than an entire new aircraft program acquisition.
What are the primary risks associated with this type of aircraft manufacturing contract?
The primary risks associated with aircraft manufacturing contracts include technical challenges in production, supply chain disruptions, cost overruns (though mitigated by FFP), schedule delays, and quality control issues. For a firm fixed-price contract, the risk of cost overruns is primarily borne by the contractor. However, the government faces risks related to potential quality deficiencies, delivery delays impacting operational readiness, and the contractor's financial stability. Given Sikorsky's established position, financial stability is less of a concern, but technical and production risks remain inherent in complex manufacturing.
How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method for this contract?
The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method aims to balance broad competition with specific requirements. It allows the government to solicit bids from all responsible sources but may exclude certain sources based on pre-defined criteria (e.g., security, specific technical capabilities, past performance). For aircraft manufacturing, this can be effective if the exclusions are justified and do not unduly restrict competition. It ensures that qualified, capable companies participate while potentially streamlining the evaluation process. The effectiveness hinges on the rationale for exclusions and whether it still results in robust price discovery and best value.
What is the historical spending trend for aircraft manufacturing by the Department of the Army?
The Department of the Army historically spends billions of dollars annually on aircraft procurement, modification, and sustainment. Spending trends are influenced by modernization priorities, operational tempo, and budget allocations. In the period around 2008 (when this contract was awarded), military operations were high, driving demand for aviation assets. While specific annual figures fluctuate, the Army consistently invests heavily in its rotary-wing and fixed-wing fleets, making aircraft manufacturing a significant and ongoing category of expenditure.
What are the implications of the contract duration (302 days) on its overall value?
A contract duration of 302 days (approximately 10 months) suggests a focused, relatively short-term manufacturing effort rather than a long-term production run or sustainment program. This shorter duration can imply a specific production lot, a modification project, or a component manufacturing task. For taxpayers, a shorter duration can mean quicker delivery of needed assets or services, but it also implies that follow-on contracts may be necessary for sustained capability. The value is assessed based on the output within this timeframe; a high output or critical component delivered efficiently within 10 months would represent good value.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: ENGINES AND TURBINES AND COMPONENT
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: RTX Corp (UEI: 001344142)
Address: 6900 MAIN STREET, STRATFORD, CT, 03
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $27,415,565
Exercised Options: $27,415,565
Current Obligation: $27,415,565
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W9115104D0019
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2008-03-04
Current End Date: 2008-12-31
Potential End Date: 2008-12-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2009-02-12
More Contracts from Sikorsky Support Services Inc
- TAS::17 1804::TAS Maintenance/Repair of Aircraft — $254.7M (Department of Defense)
- Fixed Maint — $56.4M (Department of Defense)
- Detach Supp — $54.6M (Department of Defense)
- TDI — $53.0M (Department of Defense)
- FY07 First Quarter Funding for the T34 Aircraft — $49.2M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)