Defense contract for facilities support services awarded to Tatitlek Support Services Inc. for over $51.6 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $51,664,017 ($51.7M)

Contractor: Tatitlek Support Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-04-11

End Date: 2012-12-31

Contract Duration: 630 days

Daily Burn Rate: $82.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MOJAVE VIPER EXERCISES

Place of Performance

Location: ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99503

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $51.7 million to TATITLEK SUPPORT SERVICES INC for work described as: MOJAVE VIPER EXERCISES Key points: 1. The contract's value of over $51.6 million for facilities support services indicates a significant investment in maintaining defense infrastructure. 2. Awarded as 'Not Available for Competition,' this contract raises questions about the extent of market research and potential for competitive bidding. 3. The fixed-price contract type suggests that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for value. 4. The duration of the contract (630 days) provides a substantial period for service delivery and performance evaluation. 5. The specific services provided under this contract are not detailed, making a precise value-for-money assessment challenging without further context. 6. The contract's focus on facilities support services in Alaska suggests a specialized operational environment with unique logistical considerations.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $51.6 million contract is difficult without specific details on the scope of facilities support services required. However, for a contract of this magnitude and duration, the pricing would ideally be compared against similar large-scale facilities management contracts within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies. The firm fixed-price nature is generally favorable for cost control, but the absence of competition makes it harder to ascertain if the price reflects optimal market value. Without a competitive process, there's a risk that the price may not be as aggressively negotiated as it could be.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'Not Available for Competition' (NAF) determination, which is a form of sole-source procurement. This means that the Department of the Navy did not solicit bids from multiple potential contractors. The reasons for this determination are not provided, but typically NAF awards are made when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement, often due to unique capabilities, urgent needs, or specific national security concerns. The lack of competition limits price discovery and may result in higher costs for the government compared to a fully competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there was no opportunity for multiple companies to bid, potentially leading to a higher price than if the contract had been competed. This reduces the government's ability to leverage market forces to secure the best possible value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy, who receive essential facilities support services. The contract ensures the operational readiness and maintenance of facilities critical to military operations in Alaska. Geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, supporting military installations and personnel stationed in the region. The contract supports the workforce employed by Tatitlek Support Services Inc., contributing to local employment in Alaska.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition limits price scrutiny and potential for cost savings.
Absence of detailed service scope makes it difficult to assess performance metrics and value.
Sole-source award raises concerns about market research adequacy and potential for contractor lock-in.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
Contract duration provides stability for service delivery and planning.
Award to a specific company may reflect specialized capabilities required for the location or service.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. This sector is crucial for government operations, particularly for agencies with extensive real estate holdings like the Department of Defense. The market for facilities support services is large and diverse, with many companies offering specialized services. However, contracts for large-scale, remote operations like those in Alaska can be more specialized. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large DoD contracts for base operations support, maintenance, and repair services, particularly in geographically challenging or remote areas.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not awarded to a small business (ss: false) and does not appear to have specific small business set-aside provisions (sb: false). Therefore, this contract does not directly contribute to small business set-aside goals. There is no information available regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. The focus on a sole-source award further suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate as prime contractors were not pursued in this instance.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined by the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of detailed public information on the specific services and performance. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Base Operations Support Contracts
Federal Facilities Maintenance and Management Services
Alaska Region Defense Contracts
Non-Competitive Federal Procurements

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential value.
Lack of detailed service scope limits performance and value assessment.
Potential for higher costs due to non-competitive nature.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $51.7 million to TATITLEK SUPPORT SERVICES INC. MOJAVE VIPER EXERCISES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TATITLEK SUPPORT SERVICES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $51.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-04-11. End: 2012-12-31.

What specific facilities support services were included in this $51.6 million contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact facilities support services covered under this contract. Facilities support services can encompass a wide range of activities, including but not limited to, maintenance and repair of buildings and grounds, custodial services, pest control, waste management, transportation services, and logistical support. Without a detailed statement of work or contract line item details, it is impossible to ascertain the precise nature of the services rendered. This lack of specificity hinders a thorough analysis of the contract's value and performance.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis, and what was the justification?

The contract was designated as 'Not Available for Competition' (CT: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION), indicating a sole-source award. The specific justification for this determination is not provided in the data. Typically, sole-source awards are made when only one responsible source is available to satisfy the agency's needs. This could be due to unique technical capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling circumstances, or specific requirements tied to a particular location or existing infrastructure. The Department of the Navy would have documented the rationale for this decision, likely involving market research to confirm the lack of alternative sources or the necessity of a single provider.

How does the $51.6 million value compare to similar facilities support contracts in Alaska or for the Department of Defense?

Comparing the $51.6 million value requires context regarding the scope and duration of services. For a contract spanning approximately two years (April 2011 to December 2012), this amount suggests a substantial scope of work, potentially encompassing comprehensive base operations support or extensive maintenance for significant facilities. Large-scale facilities support contracts for the Department of Defense can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on the size and complexity of the installation. Contracts in remote or challenging environments like Alaska often incur higher costs due to logistical complexities and specialized requirements. Without a detailed breakdown of services, a precise benchmark is difficult, but the value is consistent with significant defense infrastructure support.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source contract of this magnitude is the potential for reduced value for money due to the absence of competition. Without competing bids, the government may pay a higher price than if multiple contractors had vied for the contract. There's also a risk of complacency from the contractor, as there is no immediate competitive pressure to innovate or improve efficiency. Furthermore, the lack of competition can create a barrier for other capable companies to enter the market or gain experience with the agency, potentially limiting future options. Dependence on a single contractor can also pose risks if that contractor faces financial difficulties or performance issues.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms were likely in place for this contract?

While specific performance metrics are not detailed, federal contracts typically include clauses for performance standards, quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs), and delivery schedules. For facilities support services, metrics might include response times for service requests, completion rates for maintenance tasks, adherence to safety protocols, and overall facility condition assessments. Oversight would be managed by the contracting officer and potentially a contract specialist or COR (Contracting Officer's Representative) responsible for monitoring contractor performance and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Regular progress reports and site inspections would likely be part of the oversight process.

What is the track record of Tatitlek Support Services Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Tatitlek Support Services Inc. is a known federal contractor, often associated with providing services to the Department of Defense and other government agencies, particularly in areas related to logistics, base operations, and support services. Their contract history often includes work in remote or challenging locations, such as Alaska. While specific details on past performance quality require deeper database searches, their repeated awards suggest a level of capability and experience deemed sufficient by contracting agencies. However, as with any contractor, a thorough review of past performance evaluations, including any past issues or disputes, would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Tatitlek Corporation (UEI: 103357398)

Address: 3003 MINNESOTA DR STE 204, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $51,664,017

Exercised Options: $51,664,017

Current Obligation: $51,664,017

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: M6785408D8029

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline