GSA awards $94M for trainer equipment, with Raydon Corp. securing a significant portion

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $94,266,914 ($94.3M)

Contractor: Raydon Corporation

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2014-08-01

End Date: 2016-07-31

Contract Duration: 730 days

Daily Burn Rate: $129.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRAINER EQUIPMENT

Place of Performance

Location: PHOENIX, MARICOPA County, ARIZONA, 85008

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $94.3 million to RAYDON CORPORATION for work described as: TRAINER EQUIPMENT Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the firm-fixed-price contract type, which shifts risk to the contractor. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, suggesting a competitive bidding environment. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a fixed-price contract and a defined period of performance. 4. Performance context is limited without specific delivery details or past performance data. 5. Sector positioning is within professional equipment and supplies, a broad but essential category.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $94.3 million for trainer equipment over two years suggests a substantial investment. Without specific details on the type and quantity of equipment, a direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price contract type is generally favorable for the government, as it caps costs and incentivizes the contractor to manage expenses efficiently. The benchmarked value is difficult to ascertain without more granular data on the equipment's specifications and market prices.

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 offers. This approach typically fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and quality. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition suggests that multiple entities likely vied for the contract, contributing to price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by promoting a level playing field for contractors, which can drive down costs and encourage innovation.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely military or law enforcement personnel who utilize the trainer equipment for training purposes. The services delivered involve the provision of specialized trainer equipment, crucial for skill development and readiness. The geographic impact is centered in Arizona, where the contractor is located, but the equipment's use could be nationwide. Workforce implications may include jobs at Raydon Corporation and potentially its subcontractors, supporting the manufacturing and logistics of the equipment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the trainer equipment.
Limited information on the type and sophistication of the trainer equipment hinders a thorough value assessment.
The duration of the contract (2 years) might be insufficient for long-term training program integration.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract structure transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
The contract is for essential trainer equipment, supporting critical training functions.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader category of professional equipment and supplies, specifically for training purposes. The market for defense and public safety training equipment is diverse, encompassing simulation technologies, physical training gear, and instructional materials. Spending in this sector is often driven by modernization efforts, readiness requirements, and the need for advanced training solutions. Benchmarking against similar contracts for specialized training equipment would require detailed specifications of the items procured.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity, and the direct impact on the small business ecosystem through this specific contract may be limited unless Raydon Corporation actively engages small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) typically employs various oversight mechanisms, including contract performance monitoring and financial audits. The Federal Acquisition Service (FAS) within GSA is responsible for managing many such contracts. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General oversight would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Training Equipment
Simulation and Training Systems
Professional Equipment Procurement
GSA Schedule Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of specific equipment details limits performance and value assessment.
No explicit mention of small business subcontracting goals.
Performance metrics not detailed in summary data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $94.3 million to RAYDON CORPORATION. TRAINER EQUIPMENT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RAYDON CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $94.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-08-01. End: 2016-07-31.

What specific types of trainer equipment were procured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'TRAINER EQUIPMENT' under NAICS code 423490 (Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers). However, the specific types, models, or technical specifications of the trainer equipment are not detailed in the summary data. This information would typically be found in the contract's statement of work or delivery orders. Without these specifics, it's challenging to assess the equipment's suitability for its intended purpose or compare its features to market alternatives.

How does the awarded amount compare to historical spending on similar trainer equipment by the GSA or other agencies?

Direct historical spending comparisons for this specific 'trainer equipment' contract are difficult without knowing the exact nature of the equipment. The total award of $94.3 million over two years is substantial. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable procurements for similar training systems (e.g., flight simulators, tactical training devices, virtual reality training platforms) from agencies like the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security. Analyzing spending trends for specific equipment categories within GSA's Federal Acquisition Service could provide context, but the broad description here limits such analysis.

What is Raydon Corporation's track record with government contracts, particularly for trainer equipment?

Raydon Corporation has a history of receiving government contracts, including those related to training and simulation equipment. A thorough analysis would involve reviewing their past performance ratings, any contract disputes or terminations, and the types and values of previous awards. Examining their portfolio for similar trainer equipment contracts would indicate their experience and capability in this specific domain. Information on their performance on prior GSA contracts or with defense agencies would be particularly relevant for assessing their reliability and expertise.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this trainer equipment contract?

The provided summary data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for trainer equipment, KPIs might include delivery timeliness, equipment reliability and uptime, adherence to technical specifications, user satisfaction, and effectiveness in achieving training objectives. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests that meeting delivery and technical requirements are paramount. Without explicit KPIs, assessing the contractor's performance and the overall success of the procurement is limited to the general terms of the contract.

What is the potential risk associated with the firm-fixed-price contract type for this specific equipment?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type generally shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor, which is advantageous for the government. For trainer equipment, the primary risks associated with FFP would relate to the contractor's ability to accurately estimate costs for potentially complex or novel equipment, and their willingness to absorb unexpected expenses. If the equipment requires significant development or customization, the contractor might build in higher contingency costs, potentially leading to a higher initial price. However, it also incentivizes the contractor to control costs and deliver efficiently.

How does the competition level (full and open) impact the pricing and innovation for this trainer equipment?

Awarding the contract under full and open competition suggests that multiple bidders likely participated, fostering a competitive environment that typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. When a broad range of qualified contractors can compete, they are incentivized to offer their best pricing and most advanced solutions to win the contract. This contrasts with sole-source or limited competition scenarios where pricing power may be concentrated. The open competition here likely resulted in a more favorable price for the government and potentially spurred innovation as contractors sought to differentiate their offerings.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Wholesale Trade › Professional and Commercial Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers › Other Professional Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: ID08130037

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 210 FENTRESS BLVD, DAYTONA BEACH, FL, 32114

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $94,266,914

Exercised Options: $94,266,914

Current Obligation: $94,266,914

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS02F0154R

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline