DoD awards $20.1M for aircraft parts, with no competition and a long performance period

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,138,448 ($20.1M)

Contractor: Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2026-01-05

End Date: 2028-10-02

Contract Duration: 1,001 days

Daily Burn Rate: $20.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: GENERATOR,DIRECT CU

Place of Performance

Location: WINDSOR LOCKS, HARTFORD County, CONNECTICUT, 06096

State: Connecticut Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.1 million to HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION for work described as: GENERATOR,DIRECT CU Key points: 1. Contract awarded without competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of market pressure. 2. The extended performance period of nearly three years suggests a long-term need for these aircraft parts. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts risk to the contractor, which is generally favorable for the government. 4. The specific North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code indicates a focus on specialized aircraft component manufacturing. 5. The awardee, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, is a significant player in the aerospace industry, suggesting established capabilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of competitive bids. Without comparison to other offers, it's difficult to ascertain if the $20.1 million price represents a fair market value. The firm-fixed-price structure is positive, but the absence of competition means the government may not have secured the best possible pricing. Further analysis would require access to historical pricing for similar components or internal cost estimates.

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. This typically occurs when only one responsible source is available or when urgency precludes full and open competition. The lack of bidders means there was no opportunity for market forces to drive down prices or encourage innovative solutions. This approach can be justified in specific circumstances but warrants scrutiny.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the government does not benefit from the price reductions typically achieved through competitive bidding.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from the continued availability of critical aircraft parts, ensuring operational readiness. The contract supports the maintenance and sustainment of specific aircraft platforms used by the Navy. The geographic impact is primarily centered in Connecticut, where Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is located, potentially supporting local jobs. The contract supports specialized manufacturing roles within the aerospace sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may result in suboptimal pricing.
Long contract duration could lead to price increases if market conditions change significantly.
Sole-source awards can reduce transparency and accountability in government spending.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type limits cost overrun risk for the government.
Awardee is an established entity with likely proven capabilities in aircraft parts manufacturing.
Contract supports critical defense needs, ensuring operational readiness.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the aerospace manufacturing sector, specifically focusing on aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment. The aerospace industry is characterized by high technological barriers to entry, significant R&D investment, and a complex supply chain. The total addressable market for aircraft parts is substantial, driven by both military and commercial aviation needs. This award represents a portion of the Department of Defense's ongoing investment in maintaining its fleet.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication of a small business set-aside for this contract, nor is there information on subcontracting plans. Given the sole-source nature and the likely specialized requirements, it is possible that small businesses were not considered or did not possess the necessary capabilities. Further investigation into subcontracting opportunities would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Defense's contracting and procurement regulations. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver at the agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Aircraft Component Manufacturing
Aerospace Defense Contracts
Department of the Navy Procurement
Sole-Source Defense Awards

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competition
Potential for overpricing due to lack of competition
Long contract duration increases exposure to market fluctuations
Limited transparency in procurement process

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.1 million to HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION. GENERATOR,DIRECT CU

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HAMILTON SUNDSTRAND CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $20.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-01-05. End: 2028-10-02.

What is the historical spending pattern for this specific type of aircraft part with Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for this specific aircraft part with Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation is crucial for understanding value. Without access to prior contract data, it's difficult to determine if the current $20.1 million award represents an increase or decrease in expenditure. If previous awards for similar quantities or specifications were significantly lower, it would raise concerns about the current pricing. Conversely, if prices have remained stable or increased moderately over time, it might suggest market stability or justified cost adjustments. A detailed review of past contracts, including quantities, unit prices, and any modifications, would provide essential context for assessing the current award's financial prudence and identifying potential trends or anomalies in spending.

What specific aircraft platforms or systems are these parts intended for?

Identifying the specific aircraft platforms or systems for which these parts are intended is vital for understanding the contract's strategic importance and potential risks. Knowing the platform allows for an assessment of its operational status, age, and future sustainment plans within the Navy's inventory. For instance, if the parts are for an aging but critical platform, the sole-source award might be more justifiable due to limited manufacturers or specialized knowledge required. Conversely, if the platform is nearing retirement, the long-term investment of $20.1 million warrants scrutiny. This information also helps in evaluating potential obsolescence risks and the availability of alternative solutions or upgrades, providing a clearer picture of the necessity and value of this specific procurement.

Are there any known supply chain risks associated with the components or the sole-source manufacturer?

Assessing supply chain risks associated with the components and the sole-source manufacturer, Hamilton Sundstrand Corporation, is critical, especially given the lack of competition. Potential risks include single points of failure, reliance on specific raw materials, geopolitical instability affecting suppliers, or the manufacturer's own financial health. For a sole-source award, the government is particularly vulnerable if the contractor faces production issues, labor disputes, or significant price increases from its own suppliers. Understanding these risks allows for proactive mitigation strategies, such as requiring detailed supply chain transparency from the contractor, exploring alternative component sources (even if not for direct use, for contingency planning), or negotiating robust contingency clauses within the contract. The long duration of this contract amplifies the importance of identifying and managing these potential disruptions.

What justification was provided for the sole-source award, and does it align with federal procurement regulations?

The justification for a sole-source award is a critical element in assessing its legitimacy and value for taxpayers. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6 outlines the conditions under which full and open competition is not required, such as when only one responsible source exists or when a public exigency requires immediate procurement. For this $20.1 million contract, the Department of Defense must have documented a specific justification, such as unique technical capabilities, proprietary technology, or a lack of viable alternatives. Verifying that this justification is robust, well-documented, and adheres strictly to FAR guidelines is essential. Without this documented rationale, the sole-source award appears arbitrary and potentially wasteful, undermining the principles of fair and competitive procurement and raising questions about whether the government truly explored all available options.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar aircraft parts procured competitively by the DoD or other agencies?

Comparing the pricing of this $20.1 million sole-source contract to similar aircraft parts procured competitively is essential for evaluating value for money. Since this award lacked competition, there's a heightened risk that the price may not be optimal. Benchmarking against contracts for comparable components—considering factors like material, complexity, quantity, and manufacturer—obtained through competitive bidding would reveal potential discrepancies. If competitively procured similar items are significantly cheaper, it suggests that taxpayers may have overpaid due to the absence of market pressure. Conversely, if the price is in line with competitive benchmarks, it might indicate that Hamilton Sundstrand's pricing is reasonable, despite the lack of competition, or that the components are highly specialized. This comparison is a key indicator of fiscal responsibility.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Aerospace Product and Parts Manufacturing › Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: ELECTRIC WIRE, POWER DISTRIB EQPT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp

Address: 1 HAMILTON RD, WINDSOR LOCKS, CT, 06096

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $20,138,448

Exercised Options: $20,138,448

Current Obligation: $20,138,448

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0038321DZQ01

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline