DoD's $368M flight training contract with FlightSafety International Inc. awarded in 1999, ending in 2010
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $368,071,975 ($368.1M)
Contractor: Flightsafety International Inc
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 1999-12-22
End Date: 2010-09-30
Contract Duration: 3,935 days
Daily Burn Rate: $93.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Defense
Place of Performance
Location: ENGLEWOOD, ARAPAHOE County, COLORADO, 80112
State: Colorado Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $368.1 million to FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL INC for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract's long duration (over 10 years) suggests a sustained need for flight training services. 2. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor bore the risk of cost overruns. 3. Awarded under full and open competition, this suggests a robust bidding process. 4. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, FlightSafety International Inc., for a specific service. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates it was not specifically targeted for small businesses. 6. The contract's value of over $368 million positions it as a significant investment in aviation training.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its age and the specific nature of flight training services. Without comparable contracts from the same period or detailed service breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the substantial dollar amount suggests a significant investment in maintaining pilot proficiency for the Air Force. The firm-fixed-price structure generally favors the government by capping costs, but the long duration could have led to price escalations if not managed effectively.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this specialized service. While two bidders are better than one, a higher number of bids would typically lead to more aggressive pricing and potentially better value for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with two bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging more favorable pricing compared to sole-source awards. However, the limited number of bidders might have prevented the government from securing the absolute lowest possible price.
Public Impact
Pilots within the Department of the Air Force are the primary beneficiaries, receiving essential flight training. The services delivered include specialized flight instruction and simulator training, crucial for maintaining combat readiness. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around Air Force bases where training facilities are located, potentially including Colorado where the contractor is based. Workforce implications include the employment of instructors, simulator technicians, and administrative staff by FlightSafety International Inc.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration (over 10 years) may lead to outdated training methodologies or equipment if not regularly updated.
- Limited competition (2 bidders) might have resulted in a higher price than if more vendors had participated.
- Lack of specific performance metrics or quality indicators in the provided data makes it hard to assess training effectiveness.
- The contract's age means current market rates for flight training may differ significantly, making historical value assessment difficult.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, protecting the government from unexpected cost increases.
- Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a fair and transparent procurement process.
- The sustained award over a decade indicates a consistent and reliable delivery of critical training services.
- The contractor, FlightSafety International Inc., is a well-established entity in the aviation training sector, implying expertise.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the broader aerospace and defense training sector. The market for specialized flight training is significant, driven by military and commercial aviation needs. FlightSafety International Inc. is a major player in this industry. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale military flight training contracts, which often represent substantial investments due to the complexity and high cost of aviation equipment and expertise.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that this contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best available training solution from established providers, rather than specifically promoting small business participation. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract appears to be minimal, unless FlightSafety International Inc. voluntarily engaged small businesses as subcontractors.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the Department of the Air Force contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.
Related Government Programs
- Air Force Pilot Training Programs
- Aviation Simulation and Training Services
- Defense Contractor Training Services
- Fixed-Wing Aircraft Training
- Military Aviation Readiness
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may increase risk of technological obsolescence.
- Limited number of bidders could indicate potential for higher costs.
- Contract awarded over a decade ago, making current value comparison difficult.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-air-force, flight-training, simulator-training, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, definitive-contract, large-contract, aviation-services, colorado, 1999-award
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $368.1 million to FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL INC. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is FLIGHTSAFETY INTERNATIONAL INC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $368.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-12-22. End: 2010-09-30.
What was the specific type of aircraft or simulator training provided under this contract?
The provided data indicates the NationalНаименование Service Code (NAICS) as 611512, which covers 'Flight Training.' While specific aircraft types are not detailed, this NAICS code generally encompasses training for various fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircraft, often utilizing advanced simulators. Given the Department of the Air Force's diverse fleet, the training likely covered a range of platforms, from basic trainers to advanced combat or transport aircraft simulators, tailored to specific pilot career stages and mission requirements. The exact scope would be detailed in the contract's statement of work.
How did the pricing of this contract compare to other flight training contracts awarded around the same time?
A direct comparison of this contract's pricing to others awarded around 1999-2010 is difficult without access to detailed pricing structures and service levels of comparable contracts. However, the firm-fixed-price nature suggests that FlightSafety International Inc. assumed the cost risk. The total value of approximately $368 million over more than 10 years implies an average annual expenditure of roughly $30-35 million. This figure needs to be contextualized against the number of pilots trained, hours logged, and complexity of training. Without specific benchmarks, it's challenging to definitively state if the price was high or low, but the competitive award suggests it was deemed reasonable at the time.
What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance?
The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) used for this contract. However, typical KPIs for flight training contracts often include metrics such as student pass rates, simulator availability and fidelity, instructor qualifications and availability, adherence to training schedules, and student/instructor feedback. For a firm-fixed-price contract, meeting the defined training objectives and delivering services as per the statement of work would be paramount. The long duration suggests that performance was likely deemed satisfactory over the contract's life, but specific metrics would be detailed in the contract's performance work statement.
What is FlightSafety International Inc.'s track record with the Department of Defense?
FlightSafety International Inc. has a long-standing and significant track record of providing aviation training services to the Department of Defense and other government agencies. As a major player in the aviation training industry, they have consistently secured contracts for simulator training, pilot instruction, and maintenance training across various military branches. Their extensive experience and established infrastructure suggest a high level of capability and reliability in meeting the complex training demands of military aviation. This specific contract, awarded in 1999 and spanning over a decade, is indicative of a successful and enduring relationship.
Were there any significant risks identified or mitigation strategies employed during the contract's performance?
While the provided data doesn't explicitly list risks, potential risks for a long-term, large-value training contract like this could include technological obsolescence of training equipment, changes in military aviation requirements, contractor performance issues, or cost overruns (though mitigated by FFP). Mitigation strategies likely involved robust contract management by the Air Force, regular reviews of training curricula and equipment, and clear performance standards. The firm-fixed-price structure inherently mitigates financial risk for the government. The successful completion of the contract suggests that identified risks were effectively managed or did not materialize significantly.
How has spending on flight training evolved within the Department of Defense since this contract concluded?
Since the conclusion of this contract in 2010, defense spending on flight training has continued to be a significant priority, adapting to evolving threats, new aircraft platforms, and advancements in training technologies like virtual reality and AI-driven adaptive learning. While specific figures fluctuate annually based on budget allocations and strategic needs, the overall trend indicates sustained investment. Modern training contracts often emphasize modularity, increased use of simulators, and potentially shorter, more focused training cycles. The total dollar amounts for such programs remain substantial, reflecting the critical importance of maintaining a highly skilled aviation force.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Educational Services › Technical and Trade Schools › Flight Training
Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (UEI: 001024314)
Address: LA GUARDIA AIRPORT, FLUSHING
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: YES
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-12-22
Current End Date: 2010-09-30
Potential End Date: 2015-08-19 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2015-10-07
More Contracts from Flightsafety International Inc
- 200505!500470!2100!w9124g!aca, Fort Rucker !W9124G04C0037 !A!N! !N! !p00008!20050201!20050930!046173175!046173175!001024314!n!flightsafety International, In!marine AIR Terminal, LA Gu!flushing !ny!11371!27640!031!01!fort Rucker !coffee !alabama !-000000958050!n!n!000000000000!u099!other Education & Training Services !S1 !services !000 !* !611512!E! !3! ! !D! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !a!n!j!2!001!b! !C!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $355.9M (Department of Defense)
- UH-1Y FTD 2F226-3 — $47.7M (Department of Defense)
- MC-130W WST — $14.9M (Department of Defense)
- Task Order for Aircraft Pilot Training Services (fixed and Rotary Wing) Initial and Recurrent Courses in Accordance With the Terms and Conditions of the Governing Idiq Contract 70B02C21D00000008. This IS for Order Period 4 — $4.1M (Department of Homeland Security)
- FPO Crewmember Consolidated Training - 2 Base Years With 6 Option Year Periods — $4.1M (Department of Transportation)
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)