KT Consulting awarded $21.7M for Air Force flying operations support, facing 7 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,735,144 ($21.7M)

Contractor: KT Consulting, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-02-26

End Date: 2025-07-14

Contract Duration: 1,965 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 432 WG FLYING OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: INDIAN SPRINGS, CLARK County, NEVADA, 89018

State: Nevada Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.7 million to KT CONSULTING, INC. for work described as: 432 WG FLYING OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of specialized engineering services. 2. Full and open competition after exclusion of sources suggests a deliberate procurement strategy. 3. Potential risks include contractor performance dependency and the long contract duration. 4. This contract supports critical Air Force readiness and operational capabilities. 5. The engineering services sector is highly competitive, with specialized firms like KT Consulting playing a key role. 6. Fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $21.7 million over approximately 5.4 years (1965 days) for flying operations support services appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized engineering services. Benchmarking against similar contracts is challenging without more specific service details, but the fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope. The number of bidders (7) indicates a healthy level of interest and potential for competitive pricing.

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 the competition was intended to be broad, specific circumstances led to excluding certain sources. With 7 bidders, the competition level suggests that multiple firms were capable of performing the work, which generally supports price discovery. However, the 'exclusion of sources' aspect warrants further investigation to understand its impact on the breadth of competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The level of competition, while not fully open, likely resulted in a fair price for taxpayers. The exclusion of sources may have limited the absolute lowest price achievable but still provided a competitive outcome among qualified bidders.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Air Force units requiring specialized support for flying operations. Services delivered likely include engineering, technical support, and potentially logistical assistance crucial for aircraft readiness. The geographic impact is centered around the Air Force installations where these flying operations occur. Workforce implications include the employment of skilled engineers and technical personnel by KT Consulting.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if the 'exclusion of sources' was not fully justified.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical operational support over a long period.
Ensuring consistent quality and performance throughout the contract's multi-year duration.

Positive Signals

Awarded under a competitive process, indicating multiple firms vied for the contract.
Firm Fixed Price contract type aligns incentives for cost control.
Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing need for these services.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), a broad category encompassing professional services related to the design, development, and application of engineering principles. This sector is vital for defense spending, supporting complex military operations and equipment. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult without specific service details, but the overall market for defense engineering services is substantial, driven by the need for advanced technological support and maintenance.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a set-aside. However, the prime contractor, KT Consulting, Inc., may engage small businesses as subcontractors if it aligns with their strategy and the contract requirements, though this is not explicitly mandated by the contract type.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Air Force. Accountability measures are embedded in the Firm Fixed Price contract type, which incentivizes the contractor to meet performance standards within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific performance details may be sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Air Force Flying Operations Support
Defense Engineering Services
Aerospace Support Contracts
Military Readiness Support

Risk Flags

Competition Method: 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' requires scrutiny to ensure justification.
Contract Duration: Long-term contracts can pose risks related to evolving needs and technology.
Sole Point of Contact: Dependence on a single contractor for critical services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.7 million to KT CONSULTING, INC.. 432 WG FLYING OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES

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 $21.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-02-26. End: 2025-07-14.

What is the specific nature of the 'flying operations support services' provided under this contract?

The specific nature of the 'flying operations support services' is not detailed in the provided data. However, given the NAICS code for Engineering Services (541330) and the agency (Department of the Air Force), these services likely encompass a range of technical and engineering support critical to maintaining and enhancing the operational readiness of Air Force aircraft and associated systems. This could include areas such as flight test engineering, aircraft systems analysis, maintenance engineering support, simulation and training system development, or operational analysis to improve mission effectiveness. The 'exclusion of sources' aspect might suggest highly specialized or proprietary knowledge is involved, requiring specific expertise that not all engineering firms possess.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar engineering services contracts within the Department of Defense?

Direct price comparison is challenging without granular data on the specific services rendered, labor categories, and overhead rates. However, the total contract value of $21.7 million spread over approximately 5.4 years (1965 days) yields an average annual value of roughly $4 million. This figure needs to be contextualized by the complexity and criticality of the support. The fact that it was competed among 7 bidders suggests that the pricing was likely competitive within the market for specialized defense engineering. A deeper analysis would require benchmarking against contracts with similar scopes, durations, and performance requirements, considering factors like security clearances, geographic locations, and required technical expertise.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract for the Department of the Air Force?

The primary risks for the Department of the Air Force include contractor performance dependency, where a failure by KT Consulting, Inc. to deliver services as specified could impact flying operations and readiness. The long contract duration (over 5 years) increases the risk of obsolescence of services or technology, or potential cost overruns if the fixed-price structure proves inadequate for unforeseen circumstances. Furthermore, the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' introduces a risk that the exclusion may have inadvertently limited the pool of highly qualified bidders, potentially impacting the optimal price or innovation. Ensuring robust oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What is the track record of KT Consulting, Inc. in performing similar defense contracts?

Information regarding KT Consulting, Inc.'s specific track record on similar defense contracts is not provided in the data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), previous contract awards, and any history of disputes or contract terminations. Their ability to win a competitive bid for this significant contract suggests they possess the necessary qualifications and experience. However, without access to their performance history, it's difficult to definitively assess their reliability and past success in delivering comparable services to government agencies.

How does the $21.7 million spending on this contract fit into the broader context of Air Force aviation or engineering service expenditures?

The $21.7 million allocated to KT Consulting, Inc. for flying operations support represents a specific investment within the vast budget of the Department of the Air Force. While significant for this particular contract, it is a fraction of the overall Air Force budget, which runs into hundreds of billions of dollars annually. This contract likely supports a niche but critical function. To understand its broader context, one would compare it to total spending on engineering services, aviation support, or readiness initiatives within the Air Force. For instance, it could be compared to the total budget for a specific air wing or a major aircraft program's sustainment costs to gauge its relative scale.

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

Solicitation ID: FA486120R0005

Offers Received: 7

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: $22,361,186

Exercised Options: $21,737,685

Current Obligation: $21,735,144

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00Q14OADS123

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline