DoD's $29.8M security contract for 13 bases awarded to Southeastern Protective Services, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,858,867 ($29.9M)

Contractor: Southeastern Protective Services, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-10-01

End Date: 2009-09-30

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $82.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SECURITY FORCES SUPPORT SERVICES FOR REGION 1: ANDREWS AFB MD, BARKSDALE AFB LA, BOLLING AFB DC, HANSCOM AFB MA, LITTLE ROCK AFB LA, MAXWELL AFB AL, MOODY AFB GA, PATRICK AFB FL, SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB NC, SHAW AFB SC, TYNDALL AFB FL, & WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH.

Place of Performance

Location: LACKLAND AFB, BEXAR County, TEXAS, 78236

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.9 million to SOUTHEASTERN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC for work described as: SECURITY FORCES SUPPORT SERVICES FOR REGION 1: ANDREWS AFB MD, BARKSDALE AFB LA, BOLLING AFB DC, HANSCOM AFB MA, LITTLE ROCK AFB LA, MAXWELL AFB AL, MOODY AFB GA, PATRICK AFB FL, SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB NC, SHAW AFB SC, TYNDALL AFB FL, & WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH. Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating clear cost expectations. 2. Competition involved 13 bidders, suggesting a reasonably competitive market for these services. 3. The contract duration of 364 days aligns with typical service contract lengths. 4. Exclusion of sources in the 'full and open competition' is noted, requiring further scrutiny. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 points to security guard services. 6. The contract was awarded to a Texas-based firm, Southeastern Protective Services, Inc.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed service scope and performance data. The total award amount of approximately $29.8 million over one year for security services across 13 Air Force bases suggests a significant operational footprint. However, without comparable contract data for similar multi-base security contracts or detailed breakdowns of service hours and personnel costs, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and effectiveness of the security provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which implies that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded from consideration. With 13 bidders participating, the competition level appears moderate. The exclusion of specific sources warrants further investigation to understand if it limited the competitive landscape or was based on specific qualifications or requirements. A moderate number of bidders generally allows for some price discovery, but the exclusion could potentially impact the most competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even with 13 bidders, may have prevented the most competitive offers from being submitted, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers than if all qualified sources had been allowed to compete.

Public Impact

Provides essential security services to 13 Department of the Air Force installations across multiple states. Ensures the safety and security of personnel, assets, and facilities at these critical military bases. Supports the operational readiness of the Air Force by maintaining a secure environment. Indirectly benefits the local economies surrounding the bases through employment opportunities for security personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' clause in an otherwise 'full and open competition' raises questions about the breadth of competition and potential fairness.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the security services provided.
The contract's value, while significant, needs to be contextualized against the specific security requirements and potential risks at each of the 13 bases.

Positive Signals

Awarded to a single contractor, Southeastern Protective Services, Inc., indicating a clear point of accountability for service delivery.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides budget predictability for the Department of the Air Force.
The participation of 13 bidders suggests a healthy interest and capability within the market for these types of security services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the security and protective services sector, specifically focusing on guard and patrol services (NAICS 561612). This industry is characterized by a mix of large, established security firms and smaller, specialized providers. Federal contracts for security services are substantial, driven by the need to protect government facilities, personnel, and sensitive information. Benchmarks for this type of contract would typically consider the number of personnel, hours of service, geographic spread, and specific security requirements (e.g., access control, patrols, alarm response).

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Southeastern Protective Services, Inc. is based in Texas, and while its size is not specified, the scale of this contract suggests it could be a medium to large enterprise. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or performance, so the impact on the small business ecosystem is not directly discernible from this data alone.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside with the contracting officer and the relevant contracting activity within the Department of the Air Force. Performance monitoring would likely be conducted by government representatives at each of the 13 Air Force bases. Transparency is facilitated by the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), which records contract awards. However, specific details on ongoing oversight mechanisms, performance reviews, or the involvement of an Inspector General are not provided in the data.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Security Contracts
Air Force Base Security Services
Guard and Patrol Services
Federal Security Contracts
Multi-Base Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Lack of detailed performance metrics.
Need for further vetting of contractor's past performance.
Geographic dispersion of services across 13 bases may complicate oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.9 million to SOUTHEASTERN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC. SECURITY FORCES SUPPORT SERVICES FOR REGION 1: ANDREWS AFB MD, BARKSDALE AFB LA, BOLLING AFB DC, HANSCOM AFB MA, LITTLE ROCK AFB LA, MAXWELL AFB AL, MOODY AFB GA, PATRICK AFB FL, SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB NC, SHAW AFB SC, TYNDALL AFB FL, & WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB OH.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SOUTHEASTERN PROTECTIVE SERVICES, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-10-01. End: 2009-09-30.

What is the track record of Southeastern Protective Services, Inc. in performing similar large-scale federal security contracts?

Information regarding the specific track record of Southeastern Protective Services, Inc. in performing large-scale federal security contracts is not detailed in the provided data. While the company was awarded this $29.8 million contract for security forces support across 13 Air Force bases, its history with other federal agencies or similar multi-site security operations would require further investigation through databases like FPDS or SAM.gov. Assessing past performance, including on-time delivery, quality of service, and any past disputes or contract terminations, is crucial for understanding the contractor's reliability and capability to meet the demands of this significant contract.

How does the per-base cost of this contract compare to similar multi-base security contracts awarded by the Air Force or other DoD components?

To compare the per-base cost, we first calculate the approximate annual cost per base by dividing the total contract value ($29,858,866.87) by the number of bases (13), which yields roughly $2.3 million per base per year. However, a meaningful comparison requires detailed data on the scope of services, security levels, and operational tempo at each base. Without this granular information and comparable contract data for other multi-base security contracts, it is difficult to definitively benchmark this contract's value. Factors such as the size of the bases, the threat environment, and the specific security requirements (e.g., armed vs. unarmed guards, access control systems, patrol frequency) significantly influence costs.

What specific risks are associated with the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award method for this contract?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' award method presents a nuanced risk. While it aims for broad competition, the explicit exclusion of certain sources can limit the pool of potential offerors. This could potentially lead to less competitive pricing than if all capable vendors were allowed to bid. The risk lies in whether the exclusion was justified by specific, objective criteria related to capability or security, or if it inadvertently restricted competition, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers or reducing the availability of the most innovative solutions. Understanding the rationale behind the exclusion is key to assessing this risk.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the effectiveness of the security services provided under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to measure the effectiveness of the security services under this contract. Typically, for security contracts, KPIs might include metrics such as response times to alarms, number of security incidents reported and resolved, successful access control rates, patrol completion rates, and guard force adherence to post orders. Effective oversight would involve regular reporting against these KPIs, with potential for award incentives or penalties tied to performance outcomes. Without this information, assessing the contract's success in delivering value is limited.

How has federal spending on security guard and patrol services (NAICS 561612) trended over the past five years, and where does this contract fit within that trend?

Federal spending on security guard and patrol services (NAICS 561612) has generally remained substantial, reflecting ongoing security needs across various government agencies. While specific year-over-year trends require access to comprehensive federal procurement data, the demand for these services is typically consistent, driven by facility protection, event security, and personnel safety requirements. This $29.8 million contract for Air Force bases represents a significant single award within this category, likely falling within the typical range for large, multi-site security service contracts. Its value aligns with the government's continued investment in maintaining secure operational environments.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Guards and Patrol Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: FA300207R0001

Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1062 BOBBY BUTLER, CHESTER, SC, 05

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, HUBZone Firm, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,858,867

Exercised Options: $29,858,867

Current Obligation: $29,858,867

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA300207D0022

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline