DoD awards $151M for aircraft parts, with Rockwell Collins securing the contract
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $151,063,390 ($151.1M)
Contractor: Rockwell Collins, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2004-03-31
End Date: 2012-07-01
Contract Duration: 3,014 days
Daily Burn Rate: $50.1K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Defense
Place of Performance
Location: CEDAR RAPIDS, LINN County, IOWA, 52498
State: Iowa Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $151.1 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Value for money assessed against contract type and duration. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process. 3. Risk indicators include contract type and length. 4. Performance context is within aircraft parts manufacturing. 5. Sector positioning is in defense manufacturing.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure can incentivize performance but also carries inherent risks of cost overruns if not managed tightly. The duration of over 8 years (3014 days) for a definitive contract suggests a long-term need, but also increases the potential for cost escalation over time. Benchmarking against similar CPAF contracts for aircraft parts would be necessary for a more precise value assessment.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders had the opportunity to compete. With two bidders identified, this level of competition is generally positive for price discovery, though the specific number of proposals received and the evaluation process would provide a clearer picture of the competitive intensity.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down prices and encouraging innovative solutions from contractors.
Public Impact
The Department of Defense is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential aircraft parts. Services delivered include the manufacturing and supply of specialized aircraft components. Geographic impact is centered around the contractor's facilities in Iowa. Workforce implications include jobs in manufacturing and related support roles within the defense industrial base.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts can lead to higher costs if performance incentives are not well-defined or if contractor costs are not rigorously scrutinized.
- The long contract duration (over 8 years) increases the risk of cost creep and potential obsolescence of technology or parts over time.
- Lack of specific details on the 'Other Aircraft Parts' category makes it difficult to assess the criticality and uniqueness of the components.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process.
- The contract is with Rockwell Collins, Inc., a known entity in the aerospace and defense sector.
- The definitive contract award suggests a clear and established requirement.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the aerospace and defense manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on aircraft parts. This sector is characterized by high technological requirements, stringent quality standards, and significant government procurement. The market size for aircraft parts is substantial, driven by both military and commercial aviation needs. This contract represents a portion of the broader defense spending allocated to maintaining and upgrading military aircraft fleets.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). While Rockwell Collins, Inc. is a large business, there may be subcontracting opportunities for small businesses within the performance of this contract. However, without specific subcontracting plans or goals detailed in the award, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is not explicitly defined.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which is responsible for ensuring contractor compliance with terms and conditions, quality standards, and delivery schedules. The CPAF structure implies performance monitoring and evaluation to determine award fees. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed performance reports and cost breakdowns may not be publicly available.
Related Government Programs
- Aircraft Component Manufacturing
- Defense Logistics and Sustainment
- Aerospace Industry Support
- Military Aircraft Maintenance
Risk Flags
- Contract duration exceeds 8 years.
- Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type carries inherent cost risk.
- Lack of specific details on parts manufactured limits risk assessment.
- Potential for technological obsolescence over the contract's long term.
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, rockwell-collins, aircraft-parts, definitive-contract, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, manufacturing, iowa, large-business
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $151.1 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is ROCKWELL COLLINS, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $151.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2004-03-31. End: 2012-07-01.
What is the historical spending pattern for Rockwell Collins, Inc. with the Department of Defense for similar aircraft parts?
Analyzing historical spending with Rockwell Collins, Inc. for similar aircraft parts by the Department of Defense (DoD) requires access to comprehensive contract databases. While this specific award is for approximately $151 million over its duration, a broader review would involve aggregating all contracts awarded to Rockwell Collins for aircraft parts manufacturing and support. This would reveal trends in contract values, types (e.g., fixed-price, cost-plus), and durations. Understanding past spending patterns can help identify if this contract represents a significant increase or decrease in investment, potential areas of recurring need, and the contractor's established role within the DoD's supply chain for such components. It also allows for benchmarking against previous procurements to assess potential changes in pricing or scope over time.
How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure compare to other contract types used for similar aircraft parts procurements by the DoD?
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type used here allows the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a base fee, with the potential for an additional award fee based on performance against defined criteria. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPAF offers more flexibility for the government when requirements are uncertain or R&D is involved, but it carries a higher risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently. For procuring standard aircraft parts, fixed-price contracts are often preferred for better cost certainty. However, if the parts involve complex manufacturing processes, evolving specifications, or require significant contractor innovation and performance beyond basic delivery, CPAF can be a suitable choice. Benchmarking against similar procurements would reveal the prevalence of CPAF versus other types and provide insights into why it was selected for this specific requirement, potentially indicating unique performance expectations or complexities.
What are the specific performance metrics and award fee criteria used in this CPAF contract, and how are they evaluated?
The specific performance metrics and award fee criteria for this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, for aircraft parts manufacturing, these metrics could include on-time delivery, quality adherence (e.g., defect rates, compliance with specifications), technical performance, cost control, and responsiveness to government requests. The evaluation process would involve the contracting officer and technical representatives assessing the contractor's performance against these pre-defined criteria throughout the contract period. The award fee is then determined based on this evaluation, incentivizing the contractor to exceed minimum performance standards. Without access to the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or the Contractor Performance Evaluation Plan (CPEP), a detailed assessment of the effectiveness of these criteria and the fairness of the evaluation process is not possible.
What is the potential impact of the 8-year contract duration on technological relevance and cost-effectiveness for aircraft parts?
An 8-year contract duration (3014 days) for aircraft parts presents both potential benefits and risks regarding technological relevance and cost-effectiveness. On the positive side, it can provide long-term stability for the supplier, potentially leading to economies of scale and more predictable pricing over time. It also ensures a consistent supply chain for critical components. However, the aerospace industry is characterized by rapid technological advancements. A long-term contract risks locking the DoD into potentially outdated technology or less efficient manufacturing processes if newer, more advanced alternatives emerge during the contract period. Furthermore, the longer the contract, the greater the potential for unforeseen cost increases due to inflation, material price fluctuations, or changes in regulatory requirements, which may not be fully captured by the contract's pricing structure, impacting overall cost-effectiveness.
How does the $151 million contract value compare to the overall spending on aircraft parts by the Department of Defense?
The $151 million contract value represents a significant investment, but its scale relative to the Department of Defense's (DoD) overall spending on aircraft parts depends on the specific category of parts and the total annual budget allocated to aviation sustainment and procurement. The DoD procures a vast array of aircraft parts across numerous platforms (e.g., fighter jets, transport planes, helicopters) from a multitude of suppliers. To contextualize this $151 million, one would need to compare it against the total annual DoD budget for aircraft parts, which can run into billions of dollars. This specific contract, while substantial for Rockwell Collins, likely represents a component of a larger sustainment strategy for specific aircraft systems or a particular type of part. Without broader spending data, it's challenging to definitively state if this represents a large or small portion of the total.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing
Product/Service Code: ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC EQPT COMPNTS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: RTX Corp
Address: 400 COLLINS RD NE, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA, 52498
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2004-03-31
Current End Date: 2012-07-01
Potential End Date: 2012-07-01 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2022-02-23
More Contracts from Rockwell Collins, Inc.
- Federal Contract — $694.0M (Department of Defense)
- ARC-210 FY10-13 Production — $596.6M (Department of Defense)
- 200302!000006!5700!CZ46 !smc/Pkg LOS Angeles AFB !F0470102C0011 !A!N! !N! !20021106!20030930!060605883!962960589!962960589!n!rockwell Collins, Inc !400 Collins RD NE !cedar Rapids !ia!52498!12000!113!19!cedar Rapids !linn !iowa !+000005026814!n!n!000005026814!5826!radio Navigation Equipment, Airborne !A7 !electronics and Communication !3000!NOT Discernable or Classified !334220!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !B! !a!u!j!2!003!b! !A!N!F! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !c!c!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! ! !0001! ! — $573.2M (Department of Defense)
- 200510!303493!1700!n00019!naval AIR Systems Command !N0001905C0050 !A!N! !N! ! !20050712!20070131!060605883!962960589!962960589!n!rockwell Collins, Inc !400 Collins RD NE !cedar Rapids !ia!52498!12000!113!19!cedar Rapids !linn !iowa !+000002915880!n!n!000282900632!5821!radio and TV Comm Equipment, Airborne !A7 !electronics and Communication Equip !000 !* !334290!A!A!3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !d!u!j!1!001!n!1a!z!n!z! ! !Y!C!N! ! ! !z!z!a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! ! !1719!N00019!0001! ! — $410.2M (Department of Defense)
- E-6B Block I/ Ipbe Phase 3 MOD Kits — $405.0M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)