Naval Air Systems Command awarded $114M for operational training devices, with a 5-year performance period

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,038,726 ($20.0M)

Contractor: J.F. Taylor, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1999-01-15

End Date: 2007-06-30

Contract Duration: 3,088 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 199909!1700!0815!AC523!NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001997C0045 !A!*!* !19990115!20040115!114358625!114358625!114358625!N!8V704!TAYLOR, J F INC !21610 S ESSEX DR !LEXINGTON PARK !MD!20653!46725!037!24!LEXINGTON PARK !ST. MARY S !MARYLAND !0001!+000017306548!Y!N!000000000000!6930!OPERATIONAL TRAINING DEVICES !A1C!OTHER AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT !2AHE!AH-1W SUPER COBRA !3728!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !N!J!2!005!B!* !A!N!A!* !* !N!B!*!A!*!A!A!A!*!* !*!N!A!B!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: LEXINGTON PARK, SAINT MARYS County, MARYLAND, 20653

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.0 million to J.F. TAYLOR, INC. for work described as: 199909!1700!0815!AC523!NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001997C0045 !A!*!* !19990115!20040115!114358625!114358625!114358625!N!8V704!TAYLOR, J F INC !21610 S ESSEX DR !LEXINGTON PARK !MD!20653!46725!037!24!LEXINGTON PARK !ST. MA… Key points: 1. Contract value of $114.36M over 5 years suggests a significant investment in training capabilities. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a competitive bidding process. 3. The fixed-price contract type likely shifts some cost risk to the contractor. 4. Performance period spans from January 1999 to January 2004, with a potential extension to June 2007. 5. The primary service involves operational training devices, crucial for pilot proficiency and mission readiness. 6. The contractor, J.F. Taylor, Inc., has a track record with this type of specialized equipment.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total contract value of $114.36 million over approximately five years, with a potential extension, appears reasonable for specialized operational training devices. Benchmarking against similar contracts for advanced simulation and training systems would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. However, the fixed-price nature of the contract suggests that the government has negotiated a set price, which can be advantageous if costs are well-managed by the contractor.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 5 bids indicates a healthy level of competition for this requirement. A competitive process generally leads to better price discovery and potentially more innovative solutions as contractors vie for the award.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process as it typically drives down prices and ensures the government receives the best value for its investment in training systems.

Public Impact

Naval aviators and aircrews benefit from advanced training devices that enhance combat readiness. The contract delivers operational training devices, likely simulators and related equipment, for aircraft like the AH-1W Super Cobra. The geographic impact is centered around Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, a key hub for naval aviation development and training. The contract supports specialized technical jobs within the aerospace and defense industry, particularly in areas related to simulation and training technology.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen technical challenges or material cost increases.
Dependence on a single contractor for specialized training devices could create long-term sustainment and upgrade challenges.
The effectiveness of the training devices in replicating real-world scenarios needs continuous evaluation to ensure optimal pilot training.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust market and fair pricing.
Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contractor, J.F. Taylor, Inc., has experience in this specialized field, potentially leading to higher quality deliverables.
The contract duration allows for sustained development and delivery of critical training capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace and defense sector, specifically focusing on simulation and training systems. The market for such systems is driven by the need for realistic, cost-effective training solutions that reduce reliance on live-fly exercises. Spending in this area is critical for maintaining pilot proficiency and developing new operational tactics. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other major defense contracts for flight simulators, virtual reality training environments, and other advanced training technologies.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication of a small business set-aside for this contract, and the prime contractor, J.F. Taylor, Inc., is likely a mid-to-large-sized business given the contract value. However, the contract may include subcontracting opportunities for small businesses specializing in components, software development, or specialized manufacturing related to the training devices. The extent of small business participation would depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Navy and the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract terms, including performance metrics, delivery schedules, and quality assurance provisions. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. The Inspector General of the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction for investigating any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Naval Aviation Training Systems
Flight Simulators
Combat Systems Training
Aerospace Training Equipment
Defense Simulation and Training

Risk Flags

Potential for cost growth if fixed-price contract doesn't fully account for technical complexities.
Long-term sustainment and upgrade challenges if reliance on a single vendor becomes too high.
Ensuring training device effectiveness aligns with evolving operational requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.0 million to J.F. TAYLOR, INC.. 199909!1700!0815!AC523!NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND !N0001997C0045 !A!*!* !19990115!20040115!114358625!114358625!114358625!N!8V704!TAYLOR, J F INC !21610 S ESSEX DR !LEXINGTON PARK !MD!20653!46725!037!24!LEXINGTON PARK !ST. MARY S !MARYLAND !0001!+000017306548!Y!N!000000000000!6930!OPERATIONAL TRAINING DEVICES !A1C!OTHER AIRCRAFT EQUIPMENT !2AHE!AH-1W SUPER COBRA !3728!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !N!J!2!0

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is J.F. TAYLOR, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-01-15. End: 2007-06-30.

What is the historical spending trend for operational training devices by the Department of the Navy?

Historical spending on operational training devices by the Department of the Navy has generally trended upwards, reflecting advancements in technology and the increasing complexity of modern warfare. While specific figures fluctuate annually based on budget allocations and acquisition priorities, the Navy consistently invests significant sums in simulation and training to maintain pilot proficiency and develop new operational tactics. This particular contract, awarded in 1999 for over $114 million, represents a substantial investment for its time. Analyzing broader defense spending trends reveals a sustained commitment to simulation and training technologies across all branches of the military, driven by the need for cost-effective, safe, and realistic training environments that complement, and sometimes replace, live-fly exercises.

How does the performance of J.F. Taylor, Inc. on this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar training device contracts?

Assessing J.F. Taylor, Inc.'s performance on this specific contract against industry benchmarks requires detailed post-award performance reviews, which are not publicly available in this dataset. However, the fact that the contract was awarded under full and open competition with multiple bidders suggests that J.F. Taylor, Inc. was competitive on price and technical merit at the time of award. The contract's duration and potential for extension indicate a level of satisfaction with the delivered products and services. Industry benchmarks for similar contracts often focus on on-time delivery, adherence to technical specifications, system reliability, and the effectiveness of the training provided. Without specific performance metrics or comparative data on other contractors' successes or failures in delivering analogous systems, a definitive comparison remains challenging. Future analysis could involve examining contract modifications, award fees, and any reported issues or successes.

What are the key risks associated with the 'full and open competition' award type for this operational training device contract?

While 'full and open competition' is generally favored for ensuring the best value, key risks for this operational training device contract include potential underestimation of complex technical requirements by bidders, leading to cost overruns or performance shortfalls if not managed proactively. There's also a risk that the lowest bidder might compromise on quality or long-term supportability to win the contract. Furthermore, the government might face challenges in ensuring interoperability and standardization across different training systems if multiple vendors are involved over time. The complexity of advanced training devices means that unforeseen technical challenges can arise during development and integration, potentially leading to schedule delays and increased costs, even under a fixed-price contract. Effective government oversight and robust contract management are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What is the estimated value of the operational training devices delivered under this contract on a per-unit basis?

Calculating a precise per-unit cost for the operational training devices under this contract is challenging without knowing the exact number and type of devices delivered. The total contract value is $114,358,625. If we assume, for illustrative purposes, that the contract covered the delivery of, say, 10 complex simulator systems, the average per-unit cost would be approximately $11.4 million. However, the contract likely encompassed a range of devices, from full flight simulators to part-task trainers, each with vastly different costs. The 'unit' could also refer to hours of training, software licenses, or maintenance support. Therefore, a meaningful per-unit cost benchmark would require a detailed breakdown of the contract's deliverables and their individual pricing, which is not provided in the summary data.

How has the technology for operational training devices evolved since this contract was awarded in 1999?

The technology for operational training devices has undergone a dramatic transformation since this contract was awarded in 1999. In 1999, high-fidelity simulators were state-of-the-art, often featuring complex hydraulic motion systems and advanced visual displays. Since then, advancements in computing power, graphics processing, virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) have revolutionized training. Modern systems offer increasingly immersive and realistic environments, often at a lower cost point than older technologies. VR and AR allow for more flexible and portable training solutions, enabling training in diverse scenarios and locations. Furthermore, the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) is enhancing training realism by providing more adaptive and responsive simulated adversaries and environments. This evolution means that training devices acquired today are significantly more capable, versatile, and potentially cost-effective than those procured two decades ago.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 21610 SOUTH ESSEX DR, LEXINGTON PARK, MD, 20653

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

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline