Naval Air Warfare Center Training contract awarded to Intelx Corporation for $809M for training aids

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $47,139,332 ($47.1M)

Contractor: Rockwell Collins Simulation & Training Solutions LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1999-06-11

End Date: 2008-07-31

Contract Duration: 3,338 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 199909!1700!A030!A8300!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133999C0084 !A!*!* !19990611!20030711!809238447!809238447!809238447!N!00WX8!INTELX CORPORATION !741 MILLER DR SE F !LEESBURG !VA!20175!44984!107!51!LEESBURG !LOUDOUN !VIRGINIA !0001!+000019759954!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !3699!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !N!L!2!002!B!* !A!N!A!* !* !N!A!*!*!*!A!A!A!*!* !F!N!A!B!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: STERLING, LOUDOUN County, VIRGINIA, 20164

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $47.1 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC for work described as: 199909!1700!A030!A8300!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133999C0084 !A!*!* !19990611!20030711!809238447!809238447!809238447!N!00WX8!INTELX CORPORATION !741 MILLER DR SE F !LEESBURG !VA!20175!44984!107!51!LEESBURG !LOUDOU… Key points: 1. Contract value of $809M over its life 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 incentive contract type suggests a balance between cost control and performance incentives. 4. The duration of the contract (over 9 years) implies a long-term need for the training aids. 5. The primary service category is 'Training Aids', aligning with the Naval Air Warfare Center's mission. 6. The contract was awarded to Intelx Corporation, a specific entity within the defense training sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $809,238,447 is substantial, reflecting a significant investment in training aids. Without specific benchmarks for similar training aid contracts or detailed cost breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the fixed-price incentive (FPI) contract type suggests an attempt to manage costs while incentivizing performance, which can be a reasonable approach for complex training systems. The duration of the contract (over 9 years) also indicates a sustained need, potentially leading to economies of scale if managed efficiently.

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 a bid. The presence of multiple bidders in such a scenario typically fosters price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing for the government. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation is a positive indicator of a robust competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs through market forces, ensuring the government receives the best possible value for its investment in training aids.

Public Impact

Naval aviators and aircrew are the primary beneficiaries, receiving enhanced training capabilities. The contract delivers essential training aids, likely simulators, virtual reality systems, or other specialized equipment. The geographic impact is primarily within the Naval Air Warfare Center's operational areas, supporting training readiness. Workforce implications include potential job creation within Intelx Corporation and its subcontractors, as well as the utilization of skilled personnel in the defense training industry.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The long contract duration could lead to vendor lock-in if not managed carefully.
Fixed-price incentive contracts can sometimes lead to cost overruns if performance targets are not well-defined or achievable.
Reliance on a single contractor for such a significant duration may pose risks if the contractor's financial stability or operational capacity declines.

Positive Signals

The full and open competition suggests a healthy market and potential for competitive pricing.
The use of an incentive contract type indicates a focus on achieving specific performance outcomes.
The substantial investment in training aids points to a commitment to enhancing warfighter readiness.

Sector Analysis

The defense training and simulation market is a significant segment within the broader aerospace and defense industry. This contract for training aids falls within the 'Training and Simulation' sub-sector, which is characterized by technological innovation and specialized expertise. The market size for defense simulation and training is substantial, driven by the need for realistic and cost-effective training solutions for military personnel across all branches. This contract represents a notable investment by the Department of the Navy in maintaining and advancing its training capabilities.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary impact on small businesses would be through potential subcontracting opportunities. The large value of the prime contract suggests that there could be significant subcontracting potential for specialized components or services related to training aids. However, without specific subcontracting plans or goals outlined in the contract details, the extent of small business involvement remains uncertain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division and the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply for investigations into fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though specific performance metrics and detailed cost reporting may be subject to contractual terms and security considerations.

Related Government Programs

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Contracts
Training and Simulation Systems
Defense Training Programs
Military Readiness Initiatives
Naval Aviation Training

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may increase risk of cost escalation or obsolescence.
Fixed-price incentive contracts require careful monitoring of performance and cost targets.
Lack of specific detail on competition level (number of bidders) limits full assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $47.1 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC. 199909!1700!A030!A8300!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER TRAININ!N6133999C0084 !A!*!* !19990611!20030711!809238447!809238447!809238447!N!00WX8!INTELX CORPORATION !741 MILLER DR SE F !LEESBURG !VA!20175!44984!107!51!LEESBURG !LOUDOUN !VIRGINIA !0001!+000019759954!N!N!000000000000!6910!TRAINING AIDS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !3699!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !N!L!2!0

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $47.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-06-11. End: 2008-07-31.

What specific types of training aids were procured under this contract, and how do they align with current naval aviation training requirements?

The contract specifies 'Training Aids' (PSC 6910) as the primary product/service. While the exact nature of these aids is not detailed in the provided data, they likely encompass a range of technologies used for simulating flight conditions, weapon systems, or operational scenarios. Given the contracting agency (Naval Air Warfare Center Training), these aids are almost certainly tailored for naval aviation personnel, potentially including flight simulators, virtual reality training environments, or interactive electronic technical manuals. The alignment with current requirements would depend on the specific technological advancements and tactical needs of the Navy at the time of contract award and throughout its duration. Modern naval aviation training emphasizes high-fidelity simulation to reduce costs, increase safety, and provide exposure to complex scenarios that are difficult or impossible to replicate in live training.

How does the $809 million contract value compare to historical spending on similar training aids by the Department of the Navy?

Comparing the $809 million total contract value to historical spending requires access to comprehensive historical procurement data for training aids within the Department of the Navy. Without that specific comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether this contract is high or low relative to past investments. However, $809 million represents a substantial financial commitment, suggesting either a significant expansion of training capabilities, the procurement of advanced and costly technologies, or a long-term sustainment contract for existing systems. The duration of over nine years also contributes to the large cumulative value. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to analyze spending trends for similar Product Service Codes (PSCs) like 6910 (Training Aids) or related simulation and training categories over several fiscal years.

What were the key performance metrics or incentives included in the Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract structure?

A Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) contract structure is designed to share the risks and rewards between the government and the contractor. Key performance metrics and incentives in such a contract typically revolve around cost, schedule, and performance targets. For this contract, specific metrics would have been defined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW). Performance incentives might have been tied to the successful development, delivery, and operational effectiveness of the training aids. Cost incentives would likely involve targets for keeping the final costs within a certain range, with shared savings or overruns. Schedule incentives could be linked to meeting delivery milestones. The 'incentive' aspect means that the final profit for Intelx Corporation would vary based on how well they met these pre-defined targets, encouraging efficiency and quality.

What is Intelx Corporation's track record with the Department of the Navy, particularly in delivering training aids or similar complex systems?

The provided data indicates that Intelx Corporation was awarded this significant contract by the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division. This award itself suggests that Intelx Corporation possessed the capabilities and met the requirements deemed necessary by the Navy for delivering training aids. To fully assess their track record, one would need to examine past contracts awarded to Intelx Corporation by the Department of the Navy and other government agencies. This would include looking at contract performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS reports), any history of contract disputes or terminations, and their experience with similar types of complex training systems. A positive performance history on prior contracts would increase confidence in their ability to successfully execute this $809 million award.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this magnitude and duration, and what mitigation strategies might be in place?

Contracts of this magnitude ($809 million) and duration (over 9 years) carry inherent risks. These can include cost growth beyond initial estimates, schedule delays, technological obsolescence, contractor performance issues, and potential changes in government requirements. For an FPI contract, there's a risk that cost targets might be missed, leading to higher-than-expected expenditures for the government. Mitigation strategies often involve robust program management, clear performance metrics, regular progress reviews, contingency planning, and strong contract oversight. The government would likely have mechanisms to monitor contractor performance closely, manage scope changes effectively, and potentially include clauses for termination for convenience or default if performance significantly deviates from expectations. The competitive nature of the initial award also serves as a form of risk mitigation, as it implies a selection of a capable provider.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE INCENTIVE (L)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Rockwell Collins, Inc. (UEI: 962960589)

Address: 22626 SALLY RIDE DR, STERLING, VA, 10

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Timeline