DoD's $25.2M aerospace equipment maintenance contract awarded to Trinity Analysis and Development Corp. shows fair value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,218,940 ($25.2M)

Contractor: Trinity Analysis and Development Corp.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2013-04-01

End Date: 2018-12-31

Contract Duration: 2,100 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF PROVIDE DISPATCHING, SERVICING, INSPECTING, CLEANING, CORROSION CONTROL, MODIFICATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT (AGE), MUNITIONS MATERIAL HANDLING TRAILERS, AND EQUIPMENT OTHER THAN AGE

Place of Performance

Location: SHALIMAR, OKALOOSA County, FLORIDA, 32579

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.2 million to TRINITY ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT CORP. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF PROVIDE DISPATCHING, SERVICING, INSPECTING, CLEANING, CORROSION CONTROL, MODIFICATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT (AGE), MUNITIONS MATERIAL HANDLING TRAILERS, AND EQUIPMENT OTHER THAN AGE Key points: 1. The contract's total value of $25.2 million over approximately 5.7 years suggests a reasonable annual expenditure for comprehensive aerospace ground equipment maintenance. 2. Competition was strong, with 4 bidders vying for the contract, indicating a healthy market and potential for competitive pricing. 3. The contract type (Cost No Fee) can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not closely monitored, posing a moderate financial risk. 4. Performance context is crucial; the effectiveness of maintenance directly impacts aircraft readiness and operational capabilities. 5. This contract falls within the 'Other Support Activities for Air Transportation' sector, a critical component of defense logistics. 6. The geographic scope is limited to Florida, suggesting a focused operational area for the services provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $25.2 million over nearly six years averages to approximately $4.4 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale aerospace equipment maintenance contracts is challenging without specific details on the scope and complexity of the equipment serviced. However, the presence of multiple bidders suggests that the pricing was likely competitive. The Cost No Fee (CNF) contract type, while potentially offering flexibility, requires diligent oversight to ensure costs remain within reasonable bounds and that the government receives good value for the services rendered.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. With four bidders participating, the competition level appears adequate, suggesting that the exclusion of specific sources did not unduly limit market participation. This level of competition generally allows for price discovery and encourages bidders to offer competitive terms to secure the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: The competition level suggests that taxpayers likely benefited from a reasonably priced contract, as multiple firms vied for the opportunity. However, the exclusion of certain sources warrants scrutiny to ensure no potential cost savings were forgone.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force units operating in Florida, ensuring their aerospace ground equipment is maintained and ready for use. Services delivered include dispatching, servicing, inspecting, cleaning, corrosion control, modification, and maintenance of critical aerospace ground equipment and related trailers. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florida, supporting military operations within that state. Workforce implications include the creation or sustainment of jobs for skilled technicians and support personnel involved in equipment maintenance.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost No Fee contract type requires robust oversight to prevent potential cost escalations.
Exclusion of sources in the competition process could limit ultimate price competitiveness.
Dependence on contractor performance for critical aerospace equipment readiness introduces operational risk.
The long duration of the contract (over 5 years) necessitates ongoing performance monitoring.

Positive Signals

Multiple bidders (4) indicate a competitive environment for this service.
The contract covers a comprehensive range of maintenance and support services, ensuring full lifecycle care.
The contractor has a defined role in supporting Air Force readiness operations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the 'Other Support Activities for Air Transportation' sector, which is a subset of the broader aerospace and defense industry. This sector is characterized by specialized services essential for the operation and maintenance of aviation assets. The market size for such services is substantial, driven by government and commercial aviation needs. This specific contract represents a significant portion of spending for specialized maintenance within a particular geographic region (Florida) for the Air Force.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'sb' field is false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. This suggests that the prime contractor, Trinity Analysis and Development Corp., likely performed the majority of the work directly or through larger subcontractors, with limited direct benefit to the small business ecosystem for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Air Force. Accountability measures are inherent in the contract terms, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Aerospace Ground Equipment Maintenance Contracts
Air Force Logistics and Support Services
Defense Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO)
Air Transportation Support Services
Department of Defense Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Contract Type Risk (Cost No Fee)
Limited Competition Justification
Performance Dependency
Long-Term Contract Monitoring

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.2 million to TRINITY ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT CORP.. IGF::OT::IGF PROVIDE DISPATCHING, SERVICING, INSPECTING, CLEANING, CORROSION CONTROL, MODIFICATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT (AGE), MUNITIONS MATERIAL HANDLING TRAILERS, AND EQUIPMENT OTHER THAN AGE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TRINITY ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT CORP..

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 $25.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-04-01. End: 2018-12-31.

What is the track record of Trinity Analysis and Development Corp. in performing similar aerospace equipment maintenance contracts for the Department of Defense?

Trinity Analysis and Development Corp. has a history of performing various support services for the Department of Defense. While specific details on their track record for *aerospace ground equipment maintenance* require deeper analysis of past performance reviews and contract awards, their involvement in this $25.2 million contract suggests they possess the capabilities to handle such complex requirements. Further investigation into their past performance ratings, any past disputes or contract terminations, and the scale of previous similar contracts would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and expertise in this specific domain. Examining their financial stability and capacity to manage large contracts is also crucial for assessing their overall track record.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar aerospace ground equipment maintenance contracts awarded by the Air Force or other branches?

Benchmarking the pricing of this $25.2 million contract, which spans approximately 5.7 years, requires access to detailed cost breakdowns and scope of work for comparable contracts. The annual average of roughly $4.4 million is a starting point. However, without knowing the exact types and quantities of equipment serviced, the complexity of maintenance tasks, and the specific labor rates involved, a direct comparison is difficult. Factors such as geographic location (Florida), specific security requirements, and the contract type (Cost No Fee) also influence pricing. A thorough value analysis would involve comparing the contractor's proposed costs against independent government cost estimates and market research data for similar services.

What are the primary risks associated with the Cost No Fee (CNF) contract type used for this award, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with a Cost No Fee (CNF) contract is that the government bears all the allowable costs incurred by the contractor, while the contractor receives no fee. This can incentivize contractors to be less efficient or to incur unnecessary costs, as their profit is not directly tied to cost savings. For the government, the risk is potential cost overruns and a lack of contractor incentive for cost control. Mitigation strategies include rigorous government oversight, detailed cost monitoring, clear performance metrics, and strong contract administration. The contracting officer and COR must diligently review all incurred costs to ensure they are allowable, allocable, and reasonable. Performance incentives, even without a fee, can be structured through contract clauses that penalize poor performance or reward exceptional service delivery.

What is the expected impact of this contract on the operational readiness of Air Force assets in Florida?

This contract is critical for maintaining the operational readiness of Air Force assets in Florida. Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) is essential for the launch, recovery, servicing, and ground handling of aircraft. Reliable maintenance ensures that this equipment is available and functioning correctly when needed. By providing comprehensive services including inspection, cleaning, corrosion control, and modification, the contractor directly contributes to minimizing downtime for AGE and, consequently, supporting the timely and safe execution of flight missions. A failure in AGE maintenance could lead to delays, mission cancellations, or even safety incidents, underscoring the importance of this contract for overall Air Force operational effectiveness in the region.

How has spending on aerospace ground equipment maintenance by the Department of Defense evolved over the past five years, and where does this contract fit in?

Analyzing the evolution of DoD spending on AGE maintenance requires access to historical spending data across the department. Generally, such spending fluctuates based on operational tempo, equipment modernization cycles, and budget allocations. This $25.2 million contract, awarded in 2013 and ending in 2018, represents a specific investment in maintaining AGE capabilities within the Air Force in Florida during that period. To understand its place in the broader trend, one would need to compare its value against total DoD AGE maintenance expenditures for those years and observe whether spending in this category has increased, decreased, or remained stable. Factors like new aircraft procurements or aging fleets can significantly influence maintenance spending patterns.

What does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation imply about the procurement process and potential bidder pool?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation signifies that the procurement process aimed for broad competition but intentionally excluded certain potential bidders. This typically occurs when specific capabilities, past performance, or proprietary technologies are required, leading the agency to believe that only a subset of the market can meet the need. While it allows for competition among the remaining eligible sources (four bidders in this case), it inherently limits the overall pool of potential offerors. This could potentially impact the level of price competition achieved compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition. The justification for excluding sources must be documented and defensible to ensure fairness and maximize value for the government.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Support Activities for Air Transportation › Other Support Activities for Air Transportation

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1002 N. EGLIN PKWY, SHALIMAR, FL, 32579

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,334,352

Exercised Options: $25,662,037

Current Obligation: $25,218,940

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline