DoD's $37M contract for aircraft simulation support awarded to J.F. Taylor, Inc. raises value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $36,926,185 ($36.9M)

Contractor: J.F. Taylor, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-06-28

End Date: 2017-11-28

Contract Duration: 518 days

Daily Burn Rate: $71.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF REQUIREMENT FOR INTEGRATED BATTLESPACE SIMULATION AND TEST (IBST) DEPARTMENT, AIRCRAFT SIMULATION DIVISION (ASD) FOR SUPPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANNED FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY

Place of Performance

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

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $36.9 million to J.F. TAYLOR, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF REQUIREMENT FOR INTEGRATED BATTLESPACE SIMULATION AND TEST (IBST) DEPARTMENT, AIRCRAFT SIMULATION DIVISION (ASD) FOR SUPPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANNED FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY Key points: 1. The contract's value proposition is questionable given the lack of competition and the cost-plus-fixed-fee structure. 2. Sole-source awards can limit price discovery and potentially lead to inflated costs for taxpayers. 3. The duration of the contract (518 days) and its cost suggest a significant investment in simulation capabilities. 4. Performance context is limited without specific metrics on the effectiveness of the simulation and test support. 5. The contract falls within the Engineering Services sector, supporting critical aircraft simulation and testing functions. 6. Oversight of cost-plus contracts is crucial to ensure efficient use of funds.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's total value of approximately $36.9 million over 518 days suggests a substantial investment. However, without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure, while allowing for flexibility, can incentivize cost overruns if not rigorously managed. A lack of comparative data makes a definitive value assessment challenging, but the absence of competition is a red flag for potential overpayment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, J.F. Taylor, Inc., was solicited. This significantly limits the opportunity for price discovery and competition, which are typically drivers of cost savings for the government. Without multiple bids, there is no direct comparison to assess if the proposed price is the most advantageous available in the market. The justification for a sole-source award would need to be exceptionally strong to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers do not benefit from the cost reductions typically achieved through competitive bidding. This can result in higher overall spending for the same services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and its personnel who rely on advanced flight simulation for training and development. The contract delivers essential support for the management, operation, and development of the manned flight simulator facility. The geographic impact is centered in Maryland (ST: MD, SN: MARYLAND), where the facility is located. Workforce implications include the potential for specialized engineering and technical roles to support the simulator operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for money.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts require stringent oversight to prevent cost escalation.
Sole-source awards can limit innovation by excluding other potential providers.
Limited public information on performance metrics makes it difficult to assess effectiveness.
The contract duration and cost warrant scrutiny to ensure efficient resource allocation.

Positive Signals

Supports critical Department of Defense aviation training and development capabilities.
The contract addresses a specific need for integrated battlespace simulation and testing.
J.F. Taylor, Inc. is likely providing specialized expertise in aircraft simulation.
The award supports a key function within the Department of the Navy's Aircraft Simulation Division.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the Engineering Services sector (NAICS 541330), which is a significant area of federal spending, particularly within the Department of Defense. The market for simulation and training services is highly specialized, often involving a limited number of experienced contractors. Federal spending in this area supports advanced technological development and operational readiness. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the scope of simulation services provided.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. Given the specialized nature of aircraft simulation and the sole-source award, it is unlikely that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses were a primary consideration or requirement. This contract does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. As a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, rigorous financial oversight and auditing are essential to ensure that costs are reasonable and allocable. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the lack of readily available performance data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Simulation and Training Contracts
Aircraft Simulation and Testing Services
Navy Aviation Support Contracts
Engineering Services for Defense Applications

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires robust oversight.
Limited public performance data hinders value assessment.
Potential for cost overruns due to contract type.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $36.9 million to J.F. TAYLOR, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF REQUIREMENT FOR INTEGRATED BATTLESPACE SIMULATION AND TEST (IBST) DEPARTMENT, AIRCRAFT SIMULATION DIVISION (ASD) FOR SUPPORT OF THE MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE MANNED FLIGHT SIMULATOR FACILITY

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 $36.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-06-28. End: 2017-11-28.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are justified when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, such as when there is a unique capability, a critical need that cannot be met by other sources, or in cases of urgent and compelling circumstances. Without this justification, it is difficult to assess whether the lack of competition was warranted or if it potentially led to a less favorable outcome for the government in terms of cost and value.

How does the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure impact the overall cost and risk for the government?

The Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) structure means the contractor is reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure shifts much of the cost risk to the government, as the final price is not fixed upfront. While it allows for flexibility in scope and can be used for research and development or complex services where costs are uncertain, it necessitates robust government oversight to control costs and prevent contractor inefficiencies from inflating the final price. The fixed fee provides some incentive for the contractor to complete the work, but the primary cost control relies on diligent administration and auditing by the government.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this simulation support contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. For a contract supporting a manned flight simulator facility, relevant KPIs might include simulator uptime/availability, accuracy of simulation fidelity, adherence to training schedules, responsiveness to maintenance requests, and successful completion of developmental testing objectives. Without these metrics, it is challenging to objectively assess the contractor's performance and the overall effectiveness of the simulation support provided.

What is the historical spending trend for aircraft simulation and testing services within the Department of the Navy?

The provided data focuses on a single contract and does not offer historical spending trends for aircraft simulation and testing services within the Department of the Navy. To analyze historical spending, one would need access to broader contract databases and budget information over several fiscal years. Such an analysis would reveal patterns in contract awards, average contract values, dominant contractors, and the overall investment in simulation capabilities, helping to contextualize the $36.9 million awarded to J.F. Taylor, Inc.

Are there any known issues or past performance concerns related to J.F. Taylor, Inc. for similar contracts?

The provided data does not include information on J.F. Taylor, Inc.'s past performance or any specific issues related to this or similar contracts. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing contract performance reports, past performance questionnaires, and any documented disputes or corrective actions associated with the contractor. Without this information, it is difficult to evaluate the contractor's track record and reliability in fulfilling complex simulation support requirements.

How does the $36.9 million contract value compare to other similar simulation support contracts awarded by the DoD?

The $36.9 million contract value for 518 days of aircraft simulation support is substantial. To compare it effectively, one would need to identify similar contracts within the DoD, considering factors like the type of simulation (e.g., fixed-wing, rotary-wing), the scope of services (e.g., operations, maintenance, development), and the duration. Given the specialized nature of manned flight simulators and the sole-source award, direct comparisons might be limited. However, this value suggests a significant investment in maintaining and advancing critical aviation training and testing infrastructure.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Engineering Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N6134016R1163

Offers Received: 1

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, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $51,410,781

Exercised Options: $42,941,948

Current Obligation: $36,926,185

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline