DoD Awards URS Federal Services $282M for Flight Training, Raising Value Concerns
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $281,991,885 ($282.0M)
Contractor: URS Federal Services Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2001-11-01
End Date: 2008-09-30
Contract Duration: 2,525 days
Daily Burn Rate: $111.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Place of Performance
Location: FORT RUCKER, DALE County, ALABAMA, 36362
State: Alabama Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $282.0 million to URS FEDERAL SERVICES INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Significant contract value of $282M for flight training services. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, suggesting potential for competitive pricing. 3. Contract duration of over 7 years may impact adaptability to evolving training needs. 4. Lack of small business participation noted, potentially limiting broader economic impact.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The $282 million award over seven years for flight training is substantial. Without specific performance metrics or benchmarks for similar training contracts, it's difficult to definitively assess value. The firm fixed-price structure aims to control costs, but the overall cost-effectiveness requires further scrutiny against industry standards.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which typically fosters competitive bidding and can lead to better pricing. However, the duration and specific nature of the services might have limited the number of truly competitive bids received.
Taxpayer Impact: While competition was intended to benefit taxpayers, the long duration and potential for cost overruns in fixed-price contracts warrant monitoring to ensure optimal use of funds.
Public Impact
Taxpayers are funding extensive flight training services for the Department of the Army. The long-term nature of the contract impacts the flexibility of military training programs. Potential for limited economic benefit to small businesses due to contract structure.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration
- Lack of small business participation
- Potential for cost creep in fixed-price contracts over extended periods
Positive Signals
- Full and open competition utilized
- Firm fixed-price contract type
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on specialized training. Benchmarks for flight training contracts can vary widely based on aircraft type, duration, and complexity of instruction.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates no small business participation in this contract. This suggests that the prime contractor, URS Federal Services, did not subcontract to small businesses, potentially missing opportunities to leverage their capabilities and foster economic growth.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight would focus on ensuring the contractor meets all performance requirements and adheres to the firm fixed-price terms. Regular reviews of training outcomes and cost expenditures are crucial for accountability.
Related Government Programs
- Flight Training
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Army Programs
Risk Flags
- High contract value
- Long contract duration
- Lack of small business participation
- Potential for cost overruns despite fixed price
- Risk of training obsolescence
Tags
flight-training, department-of-defense, al, dca, 100m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $282.0 million to URS FEDERAL SERVICES INC.. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is URS FEDERAL 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 $282.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2001-11-01. End: 2008-09-30.
How does the per-unit cost of this flight training compare to similar contracts awarded by other military branches or government agencies?
A comprehensive comparison of per-unit costs for flight training is challenging without detailed service breakdowns. However, given the $282 million award over seven years, the average annual cost exceeds $40 million. This figure needs to be benchmarked against industry standards for comparable training programs, considering factors like aircraft type, instructor ratios, and training hours to determine if it represents a fair market price.
What are the primary risks associated with a seven-year firm fixed-price contract for flight training, and how are they mitigated?
The primary risks include potential obsolescence of training methods or technology over the seven-year period, contractor underperformance due to fixed-price incentives, and the possibility of unforeseen cost increases not covered by the fixed price. Mitigation strategies should involve robust performance monitoring, clear contract clauses for addressing technological changes, and contingency planning for potential service disruptions or quality issues.
To what extent does this contract effectively meet the evolving flight training needs of the Department of the Army?
The effectiveness in meeting evolving needs is a significant concern given the contract's seven-year duration. Military aviation technology and tactics change rapidly. A long-term fixed contract may struggle to adapt to these changes without costly modifications or supplemental agreements. The Army's ability to incorporate new training requirements or technologies within this existing framework will be a key indicator of its effectiveness.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Educational Services › Technical and Trade Schools › Flight Training
Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: AECOM Global II, LLC (UEI: 043271568)
Address: 175 ADMIRAL COCHRANE DRIVE, ANNAPOLIS, MD, 03
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $180,690
Exercised Options: $180,690
Current Obligation: $281,991,885
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2001-11-01
Current End Date: 2008-09-30
Potential End Date: 2008-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2010-09-07
More Contracts from URS Federal Services Inc.
- Federal Contract — $255.4M (Department of Defense)
- Rotary Wing Flight Training Services, Fort Rucker, AL — $254.4M (Department of Defense)
- THE Award of a Time and Materials Task Order Under ITS Multiple Award Schedule Contract Number Gs-10f-0038m for Aircraft Maintenance and Modification Services — $142.3M (General Services Administration)
- Request for Proposal for Logistics Support A-76 Study — $114.6M (Department of the Treasury)
- PM Radar Program EA 3 — $106.6M (General Services Administration)
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)