DoD's $25.8M trainer contract awarded to Rockwell Collins, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,785,166 ($25.8M)

Contractor: Rockwell Collins Simulation & Training Solutions LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-05-31

End Date: 2022-04-01

Contract Duration: 1,401 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: TRAINER IN-PLANT ACCEPTANCE

Place of Performance

Location: CEDAR RAPIDS, LINN County, IOWA, 52498

State: Iowa Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $25.8 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC for work described as: TRAINER IN-PLANT ACCEPTANCE Key points: 1. The contract's value of $25.8 million over approximately 3.9 years suggests a significant investment in specialized training equipment. 2. Awarded as 'Not Available for Competition,' this raises immediate concerns about the lack of competitive bidding and potential price inflation. 3. The fixed-firm price contract type offers some cost certainty but doesn't mitigate the risks associated with a non-competitive award. 4. The contractor, Rockwell Collins, has a substantial presence in defense simulation and training, indicating established capabilities. 5. The specific nature of the 'TRAINER IN-PLANT ACCEPTANCE' service implies a critical, potentially unique, requirement for the Navy. 6. The contract duration of 1401 days (approx. 3.9 years) indicates a long-term need for this training solution.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this specific 'TRAINER IN-PLANT ACCEPTANCE' contract is challenging without comparable non-competitive awards or detailed cost breakdowns. The $25.8 million price tag over nearly four years for a specialized training system warrants scrutiny. Given the lack of competition, it's difficult to assess if this represents a fair market price or if taxpayers are potentially overpaying. Further analysis would require understanding the specific capabilities and market alternatives for such a trainer.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as 'Not Available for Competition,' indicating a sole-source procurement. This means the Department of the Navy did not solicit bids from multiple potential contractors. Such awards are typically justified when only one source can provide the required goods or services, often due to proprietary technology, unique capabilities, or urgent needs. The absence of competition limits price discovery and may result in higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers do not benefit from the cost savings typically achieved through competitive bidding, potentially leading to a less efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

Naval personnel will benefit from enhanced training capabilities provided by the in-plant acceptance trainer. The services delivered are critical for ensuring the operational readiness and proficiency of specific naval systems. The geographic impact is likely concentrated at the Navy facility where the trainer is accepted and utilized. Workforce implications may include specialized technicians for operating and maintaining the trainer, as well as the trainees themselves.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competitive bidding increases the risk of paying a premium price.
Sole-source awards can stifle innovation by not encouraging new market entrants.
Transparency is reduced when procurement processes are not open to multiple bidders.
The specific justification for 'Not Available for Competition' needs thorough review to ensure it was appropriate.

Positive Signals

The contract is with a known entity, Rockwell Collins, suggesting a degree of reliability and established performance.
A firm fixed price contract provides cost predictability for the government.
The long-term nature of the contract suggests a sustained and important requirement for the Navy.

Sector Analysis

The defense simulation and training sector is a significant market driven by the need for realistic and cost-effective personnel training. Companies like Rockwell Collins are key players, offering advanced solutions that reduce the need for live training, which can be expensive and dangerous. This contract fits within the broader category of specialized defense equipment manufacturing and services, where unique technological requirements often lead to non-competitive awards. Benchmarking against similar specialized training systems is difficult due to proprietary designs and specific operational needs.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract involved small business set-asides or subcontracting opportunities. As a sole-source award to a large prime contractor, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless Rockwell Collins voluntarily engages small businesses for specific components or services. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess any indirect benefits to small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and delivery schedules. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Naval Training Systems
Defense Simulation and Training Equipment
In-Plant Acceptance Services
Rockwell Collins Defense Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about price fairness and competition.
Lack of transparency in procurement process.
Potential for higher costs due to absence of competitive bidding.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $25.8 million to ROCKWELL COLLINS SIMULATION & TRAINING SOLUTIONS LLC. TRAINER IN-PLANT ACCEPTANCE

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 $25.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-05-31. End: 2022-04-01.

What specific capabilities does the 'TRAINER IN-PLANT ACCEPTANCE' provide, and why was it deemed a sole-source requirement?

The 'TRAINER IN-PLANT ACCEPTANCE' likely refers to a specialized training system that requires on-site integration, testing, and acceptance by the end-user (the Navy) within the contractor's facility or a designated location before full deployment. The justification for a sole-source award typically stems from unique technological requirements, proprietary systems, or a lack of viable alternatives in the market. Without specific details on the trainer's function (e.g., flight simulator, weapons system trainer, maintenance trainer), it's difficult to pinpoint the exact reason. However, such specialized systems often involve complex intellectual property or integration challenges that limit the number of potential providers. A thorough review of the Justification and Approval (J&A) document for this sole-source award would provide the official rationale.

How does Rockwell Collins' track record in defense simulation and training inform the assessment of this contract's risk?

Rockwell Collins (now part of Collins Aerospace) has a long-standing and generally positive reputation in the defense simulation and training sector. They are known for developing sophisticated simulators and training solutions for various military platforms. This established track record suggests a lower risk in terms of technical capability and delivery performance compared to an unknown or less experienced contractor. However, a strong track record does not inherently guarantee fair pricing, especially in a sole-source environment. The risk assessment should consider their past performance on similar contracts, including adherence to schedule, budget, and quality standards, but the primary risk here remains the lack of competitive pressure on pricing.

Can the value of this $25.8 million contract be benchmarked against similar training systems or services?

Benchmarking this $25.8 million contract is challenging due to its specialized nature and sole-source award. Direct comparisons are difficult without knowing the exact type of trainer (e.g., aircraft simulator, ship systems trainer, ground vehicle simulator) and its specific functionalities. Generally, advanced military training simulators can range from a few million to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on complexity, fidelity, and platform integration. The price per year ($25.8M / ~3.9 years ≈ $6.6M/year) provides a rough metric, but it's heavily influenced by the scope of 'in-plant acceptance' and ongoing support. Without access to data on comparable sole-source awards or detailed cost breakdowns, it's hard to definitively state if the value is optimal. However, the absence of competition inherently raises concerns about potential overpricing.

What are the potential program effectiveness implications of awarding this contract without competition?

The primary implication for program effectiveness stems from the potential lack of optimal resource allocation due to non-competitive pricing. While the contractor is likely capable, the absence of competitive pressure might mean the Navy paid more than necessary, potentially diverting funds that could have been used for other critical training needs or defense priorities. Furthermore, a lack of competition can sometimes lead to complacency in innovation or service improvement over the contract's life. However, if the sole-source justification was valid (e.g., unique, critical capability only one provider could offer), then awarding it ensures the Navy obtains that specific, necessary capability, which is crucial for program effectiveness. The effectiveness hinges on whether the unique capability obtained outweighs the potential cost inefficiency.

How does this contract's spending compare to historical patterns for similar training systems within the Department of the Navy?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for similar training systems within the Department of the Navy requires access to extensive historical contract data, including details on system type, capabilities, and award type (competitive vs. sole-source). Without this specific data, a direct comparison is not feasible. However, the Department of the Navy consistently invests significant funds in training systems to maintain readiness across its diverse fleet and aviation assets. The $25.8 million figure for a specialized trainer over nearly four years is substantial but not necessarily outside the realm of typical large-scale defense training investments. The key differentiator here is the sole-source nature, which deviates from the ideal scenario of competitive procurement aimed at achieving best value and cost savings, potentially indicating a departure from optimal historical spending efficiency if alternatives existed.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing › Other Commercial and Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: TRAINING AIDS AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: N6134017R0086

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: RTX Corp (UEI: 001344142)

Address: 400 COLLINS RD NE, CEDAR RAPIDS, IA, 52498

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $25,785,166

Exercised Options: $25,785,166

Current Obligation: $25,785,166

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 2

Total Subaward Amount: $247,372

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline