DoD's $29.9M contract for navigation systems awarded to J.F. Taylor, Inc. shows fair value with potential for cost efficiencies

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,900,892 ($29.9M)

Contractor: J.F. Taylor, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-05-16

End Date: 2026-04-14

Contract Duration: 2,159 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: NAPIE TO

Place of Performance

Location: PATUXENT RIVER, SAINT MARYS County, MARYLAND, 20670

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.9 million to J.F. TAYLOR, INC. for work described as: NAPIE TO Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable given the specialized nature of aeronautical and nautical instrument manufacturing. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive award, though specific bidder numbers are not detailed. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with contract type and duration requiring ongoing performance monitoring. 4. Performance context is within the Department of the Navy's need for advanced navigation systems. 5. Sector positioning is within the defense industrial base, specifically supporting naval aviation and maritime operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The $29.9 million contract value for navigation systems seems aligned with industry benchmarks for specialized defense manufacturing. While specific cost breakdowns are not provided, the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure allows for profit control while accommodating potential cost fluctuations inherent in R&D and manufacturing. Benchmarking against similar contracts for complex electronic systems would provide further insight, but initial assessment suggests a fair value proposition for the technology and services procured.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders had the opportunity to submit proposals. This competitive process is designed to foster price discovery and ensure the government receives the best value. The specific number of bidders and the evaluation criteria would offer a clearer picture of the competitive intensity, but the 'full and open' designation is a positive signal for robust market engagement.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the most advantageous pricing and technological solutions for critical defense needs.

Public Impact

Naval aviators and maritime personnel benefit from enhanced search, detection, navigation, and guidance capabilities. The contract supports the development and manufacturing of advanced aeronautical and nautical systems. Geographic impact is primarily centered in Maryland, where J.F. Taylor, Inc. is located. Workforce implications include skilled labor in engineering, manufacturing, and quality assurance within the defense sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

CPFF contracts can incentivize cost overruns if not closely managed.
Longer contract durations (2159 days) increase exposure to changing technological requirements and economic conditions.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical navigation systems could pose supply chain risks.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive market for these systems.
J.F. Taylor, Inc. has a track record in defense contracting, implying experience.
The contract addresses essential operational capabilities for the Department of the Navy.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the defense electronics and aerospace manufacturing sector, a critical component of the U.S. industrial base. The market for advanced navigation and guidance systems is characterized by high technological barriers to entry and significant R&D investment. Spending in this area is driven by the need for continuous modernization of military platforms to maintain a technological edge. Comparable spending often involves complex systems integration and specialized component manufacturing, with contract values varying widely based on system sophistication and quantity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting goals for small businesses. The prime contractor, J.F. Taylor, Inc., is likely a mid-to-large-sized business. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small business subcontracting opportunities exist within the performance of this contract and how effectively they are being utilized.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract is managed by the Department of the Navy, likely through contracting officers and program managers. Performance will be monitored against the Cost Plus Fixed Fee terms and delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse, with mechanisms in place for reporting and investigation.

Related Government Programs

Naval Aviation Systems
Maritime Navigation Systems
Defense Electronics Manufacturing
Aeronautical Instrument Manufacturing
Nautical Instrument Manufacturing

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns under CPFF structure.
Risk of technological obsolescence due to long contract duration.
Supply chain vulnerabilities for specialized components.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.9 million to J.F. TAYLOR, INC.. NAPIE TO

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 $29.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-05-16. End: 2026-04-14.

What is J.F. Taylor, Inc.'s historical performance record with the Department of Defense, particularly on similar navigation system contracts?

J.F. Taylor, Inc. has a history of contracting with the Department of Defense, including work on various electronic systems and components. Their experience spans several years, suggesting a level of familiarity with defense procurement processes and technical requirements. Specific performance metrics on past navigation system contracts, such as on-time delivery, adherence to budget, and quality of deliverables, would provide a more granular assessment. Reviewing past contract awards and performance evaluations, where publicly available, can illuminate their reliability and expertise in this specialized domain. Without access to detailed past performance reports, it's assumed their continued selection indicates a satisfactory track record.

How does the pricing structure (Cost Plus Fixed Fee) compare to other similar navigation system contracts awarded by the Navy or other branches?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure is common for contracts involving research, development, or uncertain costs, aiming to provide flexibility while capping contractor profit. Compared to fixed-price contracts, CPFF can be more expensive if costs escalate significantly. However, for complex navigation systems where R&D and unforeseen technical challenges are likely, CPFF can be advantageous over fixed-price by preventing contractor claims for cost overruns. Benchmarking this contract's fixed fee percentage against similar CPFF contracts for comparable systems would reveal if J.F. Taylor, Inc.'s fee is within market norms. A higher-than-average fee might suggest higher perceived risk or greater contractor expertise.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) being used to measure the success of this contract, and how are they being monitored?

Key performance indicators for this contract likely revolve around technical performance specifications for the navigation systems, adherence to delivery schedules for ordered items, and cost control within the agreed-upon fixed fee. Monitoring is typically conducted by the contracting officer's representative (COR) and program office personnel. They would track milestones, review technical data packages, conduct quality inspections, and analyze cost reports submitted by J.F. Taylor, Inc. Performance reviews might occur at regular intervals, with formal evaluations documented. The effectiveness of these KPIs and monitoring depends on their specificity, measurability, and the rigor of the oversight process.

What is the projected total spending on this contract over its full duration, and how does it compare to historical spending on similar navigation system procurements?

The current data shows an award ceiling of $29.9 million with a delivery order structure, indicating potential spending up to this amount over the contract's life. The duration is 2159 days (approximately 6 years). Historical spending on similar navigation system procurements can vary widely depending on the system's complexity, quantity, and technological generation. To compare, one would need to identify comparable contracts from previous years, factoring in inflation and technological advancements. Without specific historical data points for analogous systems, it's challenging to definitively state if $29.9 million is high or low. However, for advanced, specialized military-grade navigation systems, this figure appears within a plausible range for a multi-year effort.

Are there any identified risks associated with the contractor's ability to deliver the specified navigation systems, considering the contract type and duration?

Risks associated with this CPFF contract include potential cost overruns if not managed diligently, as the contractor is reimbursed for actual costs plus a fixed fee. The extended duration (approx. 6 years) introduces risks related to technological obsolescence, changes in military requirements, and potential supply chain disruptions. Contractor-specific risks would depend on J.F. Taylor, Inc.'s financial stability, technical expertise, and past performance on similar projects. The government mitigates these risks through contract oversight, performance monitoring, and potentially by including clauses for termination for convenience or default. The 'full and open' competition suggests multiple capable sources exist, which can reduce reliance risk.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Search, Detection, Navigation, Guidance, Aeronautical, and Nautical System and Instrument Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › C – National Defense R&D Services

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: N0042118R0022

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $37,055,280

Exercised Options: $36,446,849

Current Obligation: $29,900,892

Actual Outlays: $213,831

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 74

Total Subaward Amount: $9,293,636

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0042119D0052

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline