King Aerospace received $76.3M for Army fixed-wing fleet logistics support, a sole-source contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $76,335,933 ($76.3M)

Contractor: King Aerospace, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-01-01

End Date: 2019-02-16

Contract Duration: 1,507 days

Daily Burn Rate: $50.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT OF THE ARMY FIXED WING EO-5 FLEET FOR PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE OF 1 JAN 2014 - 31 DEC 2014.

Place of Performance

Location: ADDISON, DALLAS County, TEXAS, 75001

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $76.3 million to KING AEROSPACE, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT OF THE ARMY FIXED WING EO-5 FLEET FOR PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE OF 1 JAN 2014 - 31 DEC 2014. Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating predictable costs for the government. 2. The contract duration of 1507 days suggests a long-term need for these support services. 3. Awarded to a single vendor, raising questions about potential price efficiencies from competition. 4. The contract value is substantial, requiring careful monitoring of performance and value. 5. Services provided are critical for maintaining the operational readiness of Army fixed-wing aircraft. 6. Geographic focus on Texas, where the contractor is based, may streamline operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without direct comparisons for similar, sole-source logistics support for Army fixed-wing fleets. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the absence of competition means potential savings from a competitive bidding process were not realized. The total value of over $76 million over approximately four years suggests a significant investment in maintaining aircraft readiness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source award. The reasons for this approach, such as unique capabilities or existing infrastructure, are not detailed in the provided data. A sole-source award limits the opportunity for multiple vendors to bid, potentially leading to higher prices than if competition were present.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the lack of competitive pressure to drive down costs.

Public Impact

The U.S. Army benefits from sustained logistics support for its fixed-wing aircraft fleet. Ensures the operational readiness and availability of critical aviation assets. Services are primarily delivered within Texas, supporting local economic activity. Maintains the necessary infrastructure and personnel for aircraft maintenance and support.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The aerospace and defense industry is characterized by complex supply chains and specialized technical requirements. Logistics support for military aircraft is a critical segment, often involving long-term contracts due to the specialized nature of the equipment and the need for sustained readiness. This contract fits within the broader category of aviation support services, which can include maintenance, repair, overhaul, and supply chain management for aircraft fleets.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the prime contractor, King Aerospace, Inc., is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Without a small business set-aside or clear subcontracting goals, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific contract is likely minimal, though the prime contractor may engage small businesses in their supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which obligates the contractor to deliver services within the agreed price. Transparency is dependent on the government's reporting practices and the availability of contract performance data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, aviation-support, logistics, fixed-wing-aircraft, firm-fixed-price, definitive-contract, sole-source, large-contract, texas

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $76.3 million to KING AEROSPACE, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT OF THE ARMY FIXED WING EO-5 FLEET FOR PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE OF 1 JAN 2014 - 31 DEC 2014.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KING AEROSPACE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $76.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-01-01. End: 2019-02-16.

What is King Aerospace's track record with the Department of Defense, particularly for similar logistics support contracts?

King Aerospace, Inc. has a history of providing aviation services to the U.S. military. While specific details on past performance for identical contracts are not provided in this data snippet, their engagement with the Army for fixed-wing fleet logistics suggests established capabilities. A deeper dive into their contract history, past performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS reports), and any prior issues or commendations would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of their track record. Their longevity in the industry and securing this substantial contract indicate a level of trust and capability recognized by the Department of the Army.

How does the cost of this contract compare to similar logistics support contracts for military aircraft, considering it was sole-sourced?

Direct cost comparison is difficult due to the sole-source nature of this contract and the specificity of supporting the Army's EO-5 fixed-wing fleet. Sole-source awards generally lack the price discovery benefits of competition, potentially leading to higher costs than a competed contract. To benchmark, one would need to identify comparable contracts for similar aircraft types and support services that *were* competed, analyzing their per-unit costs or total contract values relative to fleet size and service scope. Without such comparisons, assessing whether $76.3 million represents good value is speculative, though the firm-fixed-price element offers some cost control.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source contract for critical aviation logistics, and how might they be mitigated?

The primary risks of a sole-source contract include potential overpricing due to lack of competition, contractor complacency, and a single point of failure if the contractor underperforms or faces financial instability. Mitigation strategies involve robust government oversight, including detailed performance monitoring, regular audits, and potentially negotiating performance-based incentives. The government should also maintain market intelligence to understand fair pricing and explore options for future competition or alternative providers. Clear contract terms and termination clauses are also crucial risk-mitigation tools.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type in ensuring value for money in this context?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally effective in controlling costs for the government, as the contractor assumes most of the risk for cost overruns. This provides budget certainty for the Army. However, 'value for money' also encompasses performance quality and efficiency. With FFP, the government must ensure the contract clearly defines performance standards and that robust oversight mechanisms are in place to monitor adherence to these standards. If the contractor cuts corners to maximize profit under FFP, the value for money could be compromised despite cost certainty.

What are the historical spending patterns for Army fixed-wing fleet logistics support, and how does this contract fit within them?

Historical spending data for Army fixed-wing fleet logistics support would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and competition levels over time. This $76.3 million contract, awarded as a sole-source definitive contract with a duration of over four years, represents a significant, long-term investment. Analyzing past spending would help determine if this contract's value and structure are typical or anomalous. For instance, if similar support was previously competed at lower costs or if spending has increased significantly, it would warrant further investigation into the reasons behind the current contract's terms and value.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and WarehousingSupport Activities for Air TransportationOther Support Activities for Air Transportation

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENTMAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W58RGZ14R0156

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Faith Enterprises, Inc

Address: 4444 WESTGROVE DR STE 250, ADDISON, TX, 75001

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $76,760,517

Exercised Options: $76,335,933

Current Obligation: $76,335,933

Actual Outlays: $1,983,805

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline

Start Date: 2015-01-01

Current End Date: 2019-02-16

Potential End Date: 2019-02-16 12:02:00

Last Modified: 2023-08-01

More Contracts from King Aerospace, Inc.

View all King Aerospace, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending