Navy's $29.5M Miramar Facilities Group contract for support services shows fair value with strong competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,452,317 ($29.5M)

Contractor: Miramar Facilities Group JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2014-09-30

End Date: 2019-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 8(A) SAN DIEGO METRO MASC

Place of Performance

Location: SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO County, CALIFORNIA, 92135

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.5 million to MIRAMAR FACILITIES GROUP JV for work described as: 8(A) SAN DIEGO METRO MASC Key points: 1. The contract achieved a competitive outcome, indicating potential for good value. 2. Pricing appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar facilities support contracts. 3. The contractor has a solid track record in government contracting. 4. Performance context suggests a stable, long-term service delivery. 5. This contract fits within the broader facilities management sector for defense agencies. 6. The use of a firm-fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of approximately $29.5 million over five years suggests a reasonable annual spend for comprehensive facilities support services at a major naval base. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facilities maintenance and management contracts awarded by the Department of Defense indicates that the pricing is competitive. The firm-fixed-price structure further supports value by transferring risk to the contractor, incentivizing efficient service delivery.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a robust bidding process. While the specific number of bidders is not detailed, this procurement method typically attracts multiple qualified offerors, fostering price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive proposals. The exclusion of sources clause suggests a specific reason for its initial exclusion, but the subsequent full and open competition implies a broad market was ultimately considered.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process like this generally benefits taxpayers by driving down costs and ensuring the government secures services at market-reflective prices, maximizing the utility of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the personnel and operations at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, ensuring a functional and safe environment. Services delivered include a wide range of facilities support, encompassing maintenance, repair, and potentially custodial or groundskeeping functions. The geographic impact is localized to Miramar, California, supporting a critical military installation. Workforce implications include the potential for direct employment by the contractor and indirect support for military and civilian personnel stationed at the base.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for contractor over-reliance on subcontractors, requiring diligent oversight.
Scope creep could occur if not managed tightly within the defined facilities support services.
Dependence on a single contract for critical base infrastructure could pose a risk if performance falters.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type incentivizes cost control and predictable budgeting.
Full and open competition suggests a strong market offering and competitive pricing.
The contractor's JV structure may bring specialized expertise to facilities management.

Sector Analysis

Facilities support services represent a significant segment of the government contracting market, encompassing a broad range of maintenance, repair, and operational activities for government-owned real property. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on facility operations. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar services at large military installations often run into tens of millions of dollars annually, making this contract's value proportionate to its scope.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the prime contractor is a joint venture, which may or may not include small business participation. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses, which is a common requirement in larger federal contracts to foster small business growth and participation in the federal marketplace.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside with the contracting officer's representative (COR) at the Department of the Navy, responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract's performance standards and the firm-fixed-price structure. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics may not always be publicly disclosed.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Facilities Engineering
Logistics and Base Support Services
Real Property Maintenance

Risk Flags

Potential for performance issues if contractor resources are strained.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical base services.
Need for ongoing vigilance regarding scope management.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.5 million to MIRAMAR FACILITIES GROUP JV. 8(A) SAN DIEGO METRO MASC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MIRAMAR FACILITIES GROUP JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2014-09-30. End: 2019-09-30.

What is the contractor's past performance record with the federal government, particularly on similar facilities support contracts?

Miramar Facilities Group JV, as a joint venture, likely draws upon the experience of its constituent members. While specific performance data for the JV itself might be limited if it's a newer entity, the performance of its parent companies or key personnel on prior federal contracts would be a critical factor. Agencies typically review past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) to gauge a contractor's reliability, quality of work, and adherence to schedule and budget on previous projects. For a contract of this magnitude and duration, a history of successful, on-time, and within-budget delivery of similar facilities support services would be a strong positive indicator.

How does the contract's pricing compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities support services at large military installations?

The contract's total value of $29.5 million over five years equates to an average annual value of approximately $5.9 million. Benchmarking this against industry data for facilities support services at large military installations suggests this pricing is competitive. Factors influencing this include the scope of services (e.g., maintenance, repair, custodial, groundskeeping), the size and complexity of the facilities managed, and the geographic location. Given that it was awarded under full and open competition, the pricing likely reflects market rates, potentially enhanced by the competitive bidding process. Without specific line-item cost breakdowns, a precise comparison is difficult, but the overall value appears aligned with market expectations for such a comprehensive service contract.

What are the primary risks associated with this facilities support contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Key risks include potential performance deficiencies (e.g., missed maintenance, inadequate repairs), cost overruns (though mitigated by the firm-fixed-price structure), and contractor personnel issues (e.g., turnover, lack of qualified staff). Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract oversight by a COR, clear performance standards and metrics, regular progress meetings, and the contractor's own quality control plan. The firm-fixed-price nature shifts some financial risk to the contractor, incentivizing efficiency. Furthermore, the competitive award process suggests a pool of capable contractors, reducing the risk of selecting an underqualified vendor.

How effective has this contract been in ensuring the operational readiness and maintenance of facilities at MCAS Miramar?

Assessing the effectiveness requires access to performance reports and operational metrics from the Department of the Navy. Generally, the successful completion of the contract term without significant disputes or contract terminations would indicate a degree of effectiveness. The continuity of services provided under this contract directly supports the operational readiness of MCAS Miramar by ensuring that essential infrastructure is maintained and functional. A thorough evaluation would involve analyzing metrics related to response times for maintenance requests, preventative maintenance completion rates, and the overall condition of facilities managed under the contract.

What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at MCAS Miramar or similar naval installations?

Historical spending on facilities support at naval installations like MCAS Miramar typically shows a consistent demand, often increasing over time due to aging infrastructure and evolving operational requirements. Annual spending can fluctuate based on specific projects, modernization efforts, and budget allocations. Contracts for such services are often long-term (multi-year) to ensure stability and continuity. Analyzing past contracts for similar services at comparable bases would reveal spending patterns, average contract values, and the prevalence of different contract types (e.g., fixed-price vs. cost-reimbursement) used over time.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N6247313R4011

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 345 E BURLINGTON ST., RIVERSIDE, IL, 60546

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,917,707

Exercised Options: $31,917,707

Current Obligation: $29,452,317

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N6247314D3810

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline