DoD awards $58.1M follow-on support contract for FMS Case EG-D-QFJ to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $58,108,407 ($58.1M)

Contractor: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-11-01

End Date: 2014-10-31

Contract Duration: 2,556 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: FOLLOW-ON SUPPORT CONTRACT FOR FMS CASE EG-D-QFJ

Place of Performance

Location: SAVANNAH, CHATHAM County, GEORGIA, 31408

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $58.1 million to GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION for work described as: FOLLOW-ON SUPPORT CONTRACT FOR FMS CASE EG-D-QFJ Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating clear cost expectations. 2. Long contract duration of 2556 days suggests a need for sustained support. 3. Awarded by the Defense Contract Management Agency, implying oversight of defense-related services. 4. The contract falls under Aircraft Manufacturing NAICS code 336411. 5. No small business set-aside was utilized for this procurement. 6. The contract is a follow-on to previous support, indicating a history of service.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $58.1 million over approximately seven years represents a significant investment in aircraft support. Benchmarking this value is challenging without specific details on the services provided and the number of aircraft supported. However, the firm-fixed-price structure suggests an attempt to control costs. Further analysis would require comparing the per-unit cost of support or maintenance against industry standards for similar aircraft models and service levels.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This typically occurs when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or is the only source capable of meeting the requirement. The lack of competition means that price discovery through market forces was limited, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a competitive procurement.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can result in taxpayers paying a premium as there is no competitive pressure to drive down prices. This necessitates robust government negotiation and oversight to ensure fair value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense units utilizing the aircraft supported under FMS Case EG-D-QFJ. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, and logistical support for specific aircraft. The geographic impact is likely concentrated where the supported aircraft are deployed or based. Workforce implications may include specialized technicians and support staff employed by Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
Long contract duration may obscure potential inefficiencies if not actively managed.
Lack of detailed service scope makes it difficult to assess true value for money.

Positive Signals

Follow-on nature suggests contractor has a proven track record with this specific requirement.
Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded by DCMA indicates a level of established oversight for defense contracts.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Aircraft Manufacturing sector, specifically supporting existing aerospace assets. The market for specialized aerospace support and sustainment is significant, driven by the high cost and complexity of military aviation. Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation is a major player in this space. Benchmarking would involve comparing the contract's value against other sustainment contracts for similar aircraft platforms or against the total lifecycle cost of the supported aircraft.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This means that the prime contract was awarded to a large business, and opportunities for small businesses would likely be through subcontracting directly with Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, if they choose to engage them.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractors meet performance, quality, and delivery requirements. Oversight mechanisms would include contract surveillance, performance reviews, and financial audits. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases, but detailed operational oversight specifics are typically internal to the agency.

Related Government Programs

Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Program Support
Aircraft Sustainment and Maintenance Contracts
Defense Logistics Agency Contracts
Aerospace Manufacturing and Support Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for higher costs due to non-competitive nature

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $58.1 million to GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION. FOLLOW-ON SUPPORT CONTRACT FOR FMS CASE EG-D-QFJ

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GULFSTREAM AEROSPACE CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $58.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-11-01. End: 2014-10-31.

What is the specific nature of the 'FOLLOW-ON SUPPORT CONTRACT FOR FMS CASE EG-D-QFJ' and what services are included?

The provided data indicates this is a 'FOLLOW-ON SUPPORT CONTRACT FOR FMS CASE EG-D-QFJ'. 'FMS' typically stands for Foreign Military Sales, suggesting this contract supports aircraft being provided to a foreign ally under a U.S. government sales program. 'EG-D-QFJ' is likely a specific case identifier within the FMS system. As a follow-on contract, it implies that similar support was provided previously by the same contractor. The services would generally encompass sustainment activities such as maintenance, repair, overhaul, spare parts provisioning, and technical support for the specified aircraft. The exact scope would be detailed in the contract's statement of work, which is not provided here but would outline the specific tasks, deliverables, and performance standards required.

How does the $58.1 million contract value compare to similar aircraft support contracts within the Department of Defense?

Comparing the $58.1 million value requires context on the specific aircraft type, age, operational tempo, and the scope of support (e.g., full sustainment vs. specific component repair). For large, complex military aircraft platforms, $58.1 million over a period of roughly seven years (2007-2014) might be considered moderate, especially if it covers comprehensive support for a fleet. However, without knowing the specific aircraft model and the number of units supported, a direct comparison is difficult. Contracts for sustainment of high-performance or specialized military aircraft can range from tens of millions to billions of dollars over their lifecycle. This contract's value should be benchmarked against similar FMS support contracts for comparable aircraft or against the total cost of ownership projections for the supported platform.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source, firm-fixed-price contract of this duration?

The primary risks associated with this sole-source, firm-fixed-price contract of long duration include: 1. **Cost Overruns (for the contractor, potentially leading to future price increases):** While firm-fixed-price aims to cap costs for the government, unforeseen technical issues or inflation not accounted for could strain the contractor, potentially impacting future pricing or performance. 2. **Lack of Innovation:** Without competition, there's less incentive for the contractor to innovate or find more cost-effective methods. 3. **Scope Creep:** If the government's needs evolve, managing changes under a fixed-price contract can be complex and may lead to disputes or costly modifications. 4. **Contractor Performance Issues:** If the contractor underperforms, the government's options for recourse might be limited due to the sole-source nature, potentially leading to prolonged periods of suboptimal support. 5. **Price Reasonableness:** Sole-source awards inherently lack the price discovery mechanism of competition, raising concerns about whether the government is paying a fair market price.

What does the contractor's track record with Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation suggest about their ability to fulfill this contract?

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation is a well-established manufacturer of business jets and has a significant presence in aerospace services. Their track record in producing high-quality aircraft and providing support services is generally strong within the civilian market. For defense contracts, their ability to fulfill requirements depends on their specific experience with military platforms and government contracting regulations. As this is a 'follow-on' contract, it strongly suggests that Gulfstream successfully met the requirements of the previous iteration of this FMS support case. This historical performance is a key indicator of their capability and reliability in fulfilling the ongoing needs for FMS Case EG-D-QFJ.

How has spending on aircraft manufacturing and support evolved within the Department of Defense since 2007?

Spending on aircraft manufacturing and support within the Department of Defense has been a consistently large component of the defense budget. Since 2007, there has been a continuous emphasis on modernizing aging fleets, developing next-generation platforms (like the F-35), and ensuring the readiness and sustainment of existing aircraft. This includes significant investments in maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO) services, spare parts, and upgrades. While specific budget allocations fluctuate based on strategic priorities, technological advancements, and geopolitical events, the overall trend has been towards maintaining a technologically superior air capability, which necessitates substantial and ongoing spending on both new platforms and their long-term support. The rise of sustainment-as-a-service models and performance-based logistics has also influenced how these contracts are structured and managed.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Aircraft Manufacturing

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: FA810607R0008

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: General Dynamics Corp (UEI: 001381284)

Address: 500 GULFSTREAM RD, SAVANNAH, GA, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $137,697,562

Exercised Options: $58,108,407

Current Obligation: $58,108,407

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline