DoD's $117M waste collection contract awarded to Phillips and Jordan, Inc. for 246 days

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $117,224,263 ($117.2M)

Contractor: Phillips and Jordan, Incorporated

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-10-27

End Date: 2006-06-30

Contract Duration: 246 days

Daily Burn Rate: $476.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 22

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: NEW ORLEANS, ORLEANS County, LOUISIANA, 70130

State: Louisiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $117.2 million to PHILLIPS AND JORDAN, INCORPORATED for work described as: Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the short duration and firm fixed price, but detailed cost breakdowns are needed for a definitive assessment. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open competition after exclusion of sources, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a short performance period and a single awardee, but the firm fixed price contract type mitigates some financial risk. 4. Performance context is limited due to the short contract duration, making long-term effectiveness difficult to gauge. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader 'Other Waste Collection' services, a common requirement for large government installations. 6. The contract was awarded under a firm fixed price structure, which shifts cost risk to the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $117.2 million for a 246-day contract suggests a high daily rate for waste collection services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for large-scale waste management at military installations is necessary to determine if this represents a competitive price. Without more granular data on the scope of services (e.g., volume of waste, types of waste, specific collection points), a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm fixed price nature of the contract implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator if the price was set competitively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the final bidding. The presence of 22 bidders suggests a robust level of interest and competition. This level of competition is generally positive for price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process with 22 bidders is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of securing services at a market-competitive rate, preventing potential overpayment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel at the specified installation, ensuring essential waste management services. Services delivered include the collection and disposal of various types of waste generated by military operations and personnel. The geographic impact is localized to the specific military installation in Louisiana where the services were rendered. Workforce implications would involve the employment of personnel by Phillips and Jordan, Inc. for the execution of these waste collection services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if the scope of 'waste collection' was underestimated by the contractor, despite the firm fixed price.
The exclusion of sources prior to full and open competition raises questions about the breadth of initial market engagement.
Limited performance data due to the short contract duration makes it difficult to assess long-term contractor reliability and efficiency.

Positive Signals

A high number of bidders (22) indicates strong market interest and a competitive environment.
The firm fixed price contract type transfers cost risk to the contractor.
The contract was awarded to a single entity, Phillips and Jordan, Inc., suggesting they met the requirements effectively for this specific award.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader waste management and collection services sector, which is a critical support function for government operations, particularly military bases. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 562119 ('Other Waste Collection') covers a wide range of non-hazardous waste collection activities. Spending in this sector can vary significantly based on the size and operational tempo of the facility requiring the services. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically look at per-ton collection costs or per-facility service fees.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this specific contract, as the 'ss' (small business set-aside) and 'sb' (small business) flags are false. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee, Phillips and Jordan, Inc., likely performed the majority of the work directly, and the impact on the small business ecosystem for this particular contract is likely minimal unless subcontracting occurred without explicit reporting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army contracting office. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services. Transparency is generally provided through contract award databases like FPDS, which allow public access to contract details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Waste Management Contracts
Military Base Support Services
Environmental Services Contracts
Logistics and Facilities Management Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost creep despite fixed price if scope is poorly defined.
Contract performance risk due to short duration.
Questions regarding the 'exclusion of sources' in competition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $117.2 million to PHILLIPS AND JORDAN, INCORPORATED. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PHILLIPS AND JORDAN, INCORPORATED.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $117.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-10-27. End: 2006-06-30.

What specific types of waste were included in the 'Other Waste Collection' services, and what were the estimated volumes?

The provided data does not specify the exact types or estimated volumes of waste covered under this contract. NAICS code 562119, 'Other Waste Collection,' is broad and can encompass various non-hazardous waste streams, such as general refuse, recycling, or specific industrial byproducts. For a comprehensive understanding, one would need to consult the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS). These documents typically detail the scope, frequency, and types of waste to be collected, as well as any specific handling or disposal requirements. Without this granular detail, it's difficult to fully assess the service delivery and value.

How does the per-day cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar waste collection services at large military installations?

The contract's total value is $117,224,263.30 over 246 days, equating to approximately $476,521 per day. This daily rate is substantial and would need to be benchmarked against industry standards for large-scale waste management at military installations. Factors influencing this rate include the volume and type of waste, the geographic location (affecting labor and disposal costs), the specific services required (e.g., collection, transport, landfill fees, recycling), and the level of service (e.g., frequency of collection, specialized equipment). A direct comparison would require access to anonymized data from similar DoD contracts or private sector contracts of comparable scale and scope.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) and evaluation criteria used to award this contract?

The provided summary data does not detail the specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or evaluation criteria used for awarding this contract. Typically, for a firm fixed price contract awarded after full and open competition, evaluation criteria might include technical approach, past performance, price, and small business participation (though small business participation appears minimal here). The contracting agency, Department of the Army, would have outlined these criteria in the solicitation document (e.g., Request for Proposal - RFP). Understanding these criteria is crucial for assessing the basis of the award and whether the selected contractor, Phillips and Jordan, Inc., was deemed the best value.

What is the track record of Phillips and Jordan, Inc. in performing large-scale waste management contracts for the federal government?

Phillips and Jordan, Inc. has a history of performing various types of contracts, including construction and infrastructure services, for the federal government. While this specific data point highlights a significant waste collection contract, their broader portfolio would need to be examined to fully assess their track record in large-scale waste management. Information on past performance, including successful contract completions, any disputes, or contract terminations, would be available through sources like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or other federal procurement databases. A review of their history would indicate their capacity and reliability in managing complex service contracts.

Were there any significant challenges or disputes during the performance of this contract?

The provided data does not contain information regarding challenges or disputes that may have arisen during the performance of this contract. Contracts, especially those of significant value and duration, can sometimes encounter issues related to scope changes, performance deficiencies, or payment disputes. To determine if any such issues occurred, one would typically need to review contract modification history, CPARS reports, or any official correspondence related to contract administration. The absence of readily available dispute information does not necessarily mean none occurred, but it suggests no major, publicly documented conflicts.

How does historical spending on waste collection services by the Department of the Army compare to this specific contract's value?

This specific contract represents a substantial single award of $117.2 million for waste collection over approximately eight months. To contextualize this historically, one would need to analyze the Department of the Army's total annual spending on waste management and related services over several fiscal years. This would involve aggregating data from numerous contracts across different installations and service types. Comparing this single contract's value to the overall historical spending would reveal whether it represents a typical expenditure, an outlier, or a significant portion of the Army's budget allocated to this specific service category.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Waste Collection › Other Waste Collection

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 22

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Phillips Heavy, Inc (UEI: 003845336)

Address: 8940 GALL BLVD, ZEPHYRHILLS, FL, 15

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W912P805D0022

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline