Air Force awards $26.1M F-16 training contract to KT Consulting, Inc. for combat aircrew development

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,143,025 ($26.1M)

Contractor: KT Consulting, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-07-01

End Date: 2026-03-31

Contract Duration: 638 days

Daily Burn Rate: $41.0K/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: THE PURPOSE OF THE WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT CONTRACT (WSSC) IS TO PROVIDE THE USAF WITH F-16 COMBAT AIRCREW TRAINING (CAT), COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT (CWD) AND ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES. SEE PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) AT ATCH. 1.

Place of Performance

Location: RANDOLPH AFB, BEXAR County, TEXAS, 78150

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $26.1 million to KT CONSULTING, INC. for work described as: THE PURPOSE OF THE WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT CONTRACT (WSSC) IS TO PROVIDE THE USAF WITH F-16 COMBAT AIRCREW TRAINING (CAT), COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT (CWD) AND ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES. SEE PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) AT ATCH. 1. Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical F-16 combat aircrew training and courseware development. 2. KT Consulting, Inc. secured the award through full and open competition. 3. The contract duration spans over 1.5 years, indicating a medium-term support need. 4. Firm Fixed Price contract type suggests predictable costs for the government. 5. Performance is located in Texas, potentially impacting local workforce and economy. 6. The contract is a Delivery Order, suggesting it's part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $26.1 million for 1.5 years of F-16 training services appears reasonable given the specialized nature of combat aircrew training. Benchmarking against similar complex training systems is difficult without more specific service details, but the firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty. The award to a single contractor suggests a focused approach to meeting specific training requirements.

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 multiple potential bidders were considered, but specific sources were excluded for defined reasons. This suggests a competitive process, though the exclusion of sources warrants further investigation into the justification. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation implies a robust competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process, even with exclusions, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their best pricing and capabilities, potentially leading to a more cost-effective outcome.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force combat aircrews who will receive enhanced F-16 training. Services delivered include combat aircrew training (CAT) and courseware development (CWD). The contract's geographic impact is centered in Texas, where performance will occur. Workforce implications may include specialized training professionals and support staff in Texas.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited competition if source exclusions were not well-justified.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical training services could pose a risk if performance falters.
Scope creep could increase costs if not managed tightly under the firm fixed-price structure.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost predictability.
Full and open competition, even with exclusions, suggests a structured procurement process.
Award to a single entity can streamline management and ensure focused delivery of specialized training.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, specifically related to defense training systems. The market for specialized military training, particularly for advanced fighter aircraft like the F-16, is a niche but critical segment of the broader defense industry. Spending in this area is driven by the need for continuous pilot proficiency and adaptation to evolving threats, often involving significant investment in simulation and courseware.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside requirement. The prime contractor, KT Consulting, Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors, but this is not mandated by the contract's structure.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by the contracting officer and program management office within the Department of the Air Force. Performance monitoring against the PWS will be crucial. Transparency is facilitated by the contract award notice, but detailed performance metrics and financial reporting would require access to government contract databases or specific reporting.

Related Government Programs

F-16 Sustainment Programs
Air Combat Command Training Initiatives
Defense Training and Simulation Contracts
Air Force Courseware Development

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusions.
Contractor performance risk for specialized training services.
Scope management under Firm Fixed Price contract.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $26.1 million to KT CONSULTING, INC.. THE PURPOSE OF THE WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT CONTRACT (WSSC) IS TO PROVIDE THE USAF WITH F-16 COMBAT AIRCREW TRAINING (CAT), COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT (CWD) AND ADDITIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES. SEE PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT (PWS) AT ATCH. 1.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KT CONSULTING, 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 $26.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-07-01. End: 2026-03-31.

What is the track record of KT Consulting, Inc. in providing similar F-16 training services?

Information regarding KT Consulting, Inc.'s specific track record in providing F-16 combat aircrew training and courseware development is not detailed in the provided data. A thorough assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, previous contracts of a similar nature, and any reported issues or successes. The company's experience in defense contracting and specialized training systems would be key factors in evaluating their capability to meet the requirements of this contract effectively. Further research into their contract history with the Department of Defense and other agencies would be necessary to establish a comprehensive understanding of their performance.

How does the value of this contract compare to similar F-16 training contracts awarded previously?

Direct comparison of this $26.1 million contract value is challenging without access to a database of comparable F-16 training contracts. Factors such as the scope of services (e.g., simulator hours, specific courseware modules, duration of training), the number of aircrews trained, and the specific performance period significantly influence contract value. Generally, complex, multi-year training programs for advanced platforms like the F-16 represent substantial investments. The firm fixed-price nature of this contract suggests a defined scope, and its value should be assessed against the deliverables outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) relative to industry benchmarks for similar specialized defense training services.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks include potential performance deficiencies by the contractor, scope creep leading to cost overruns (though mitigated by the firm fixed-price structure), and reliance on a single provider for critical training. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust government oversight, clearly defined performance metrics in the PWS, regular progress reviews, and potentially contingency planning for contractor failure. The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' suggests a deliberate selection process aimed at identifying a capable contractor, but the specific reasons for source exclusion could indicate pre-existing risk factors that need careful management.

How effective is the chosen competition strategy ('full and open competition after exclusion of sources') in ensuring value for taxpayers?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' strategy aims to balance broad market reach with specific requirements. While 'full and open' generally promotes competition and price discovery, the 'exclusion of sources' element means not all potential offerors were considered. The effectiveness for taxpayers hinges on the justification for these exclusions; if they were based on legitimate technical or capability requirements, the strategy could still yield good value. However, if exclusions were arbitrary or overly restrictive, they could limit competition and potentially lead to higher prices or less optimal solutions. A review of the justification for exclusions is critical to assessing the value proposition for taxpayers.

What is the historical spending trend for F-16 combat aircrew training and courseware development by the Air Force?

Historical spending trends for F-16 combat aircrew training and courseware development by the Air Force are not provided in the current data. Analyzing past spending would involve examining annual budgets allocated to F-16 training programs, the number and value of previous contracts for similar services, and any shifts in training methodologies or technology adoption over time. Such an analysis would help contextualize the current $26.1 million award within a broader financial picture and identify any significant increases or decreases in investment in this area.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

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

Address: 4435 E CHANDLER BLVD STE 130, PHOENIX, AZ, 85048

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $40,299,447

Exercised Options: $26,143,025

Current Obligation: $26,143,025

Actual Outlays: $2,823,224

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADS322

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline