DoD's $86.7M waste collection contract awarded to Phillips and Jordan, Inc. in 2005

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $86,681,980 ($86.7M)

Contractor: Phillips and Jordan, Incorporated

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-11-14

End Date: 2006-09-30

Contract Duration: 320 days

Daily Burn Rate: $270.9K/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 $86.7 million to PHILLIPS AND JORDAN, INCORPORATED for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract value of $86.7 million represents a significant investment in waste management services for the Department of Defense. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, this contract suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized. 3. The contract duration of 320 days indicates a focused, short-term need for these services. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 562119 points to a specialized waste collection service. 5. The contract was awarded in November 2005, with an end date in September 2006, reflecting a specific operational period. 6. The 'AW' award type suggests the contract was awarded to the best value, not necessarily the lowest price. 7. The 'ST' indicator of 'LA' likely refers to the state of Louisiana, potentially indicating the service location.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the scope of services and the prevailing market rates in 2005. The award type 'AW' (Best Value) implies that factors beyond price were considered, which can sometimes lead to higher initial costs but potentially better overall performance or suitability. Without comparative data on similar waste collection contracts from that period, it's difficult to definitively assess if the $86.7 million represented excellent value for money. The absence of a specific Product Service Code (PSC) also limits detailed comparison.

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 the solicitation was publicly advertised, and all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The 'NO' value of 22 suggests that there were at least 22 bids or proposals received, indicating a healthy level of competition for this waste collection service. A competitive process like this generally promotes price discovery and encourages contractors to offer competitive pricing to win the award.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs through market forces. The presence of 22 offers suggests that the government received a range of pricing options, likely leading to a more favorable price for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of Defense and its personnel, who received essential waste collection services. The services delivered ensured the proper disposal and management of waste, contributing to operational readiness and environmental compliance. The geographic impact is likely localized to a specific military installation or region within Louisiana, as indicated by the 'ST' code. The contract supported jobs within the waste collection and management sector, contributing to the local economy in Louisiana.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed service scope makes it difficult to assess if the $86.7M was fully justified.
The contract's short duration (320 days) might indicate a temporary need or a gap-filling measure, raising questions about long-term planning.
The 'AW' award type, while potentially beneficial, can sometimes obscure the exact cost drivers compared to a lowest-price-technically-acceptable award.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust and fair bidding process.
The high number of offers (22) indicates significant market interest and a competitive environment.
The contract addressed a clear operational need for waste collection services for the Department of Defense.

Sector Analysis

The waste collection services industry is a critical component of public infrastructure and environmental management. This contract falls under the broader 'Waste Management and Remediation Services' sector. The market for government waste management contracts is substantial, driven by the operational needs of federal agencies across various locations. While specific benchmarks for military waste collection contracts from 2005 are scarce, the general industry is characterized by a mix of large national providers and smaller regional specialists. The $86.7 million awarded to Phillips and Jordan, Inc. represents a significant, albeit localized, investment within this sector for a defined period.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included specific small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting requirements. The contract was awarded to Phillips and Jordan, Incorporated, which is likely a larger entity. Without explicit set-aside goals, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific award is unclear, though larger prime contractors often engage small businesses for specialized support services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army administrative contracting officer (ACO) or quality assurance representative (QAR). Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's performance clauses and the firm-fixed-price structure, where deviations from agreed-upon service levels could lead to penalties or non-payment. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Environmental Services Contracts
Municipal Waste Management Services
Logistics and Support Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope was not precisely defined.
Environmental compliance risks inherent in waste management.
Logistical challenges in service delivery.
Contract performance risk due to short duration.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $86.7 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 $86.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-11-14. End: 2006-09-30.

What was the specific scope of waste collection services provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Other Waste Collection' under NAICS code 562119. However, the specific scope of services is not detailed. This could range from general refuse collection, hazardous waste disposal, recycling services, or specialized waste streams depending on the military installation's needs. Without a detailed statement of work (SOW), it is impossible to ascertain the precise nature and volume of waste handled, which is crucial for a comprehensive value assessment. The contract's firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined set of services was agreed upon at the time of award.

How does the $86.7 million contract value compare to similar waste collection contracts awarded by the DoD around 2005?

Direct comparison of the $86.7 million value is difficult without access to a detailed database of similar contracts from 2005, specifically for waste collection services at military installations. However, $86.7 million is a substantial sum, suggesting a large-scale operation, potentially covering multiple facilities or a significant volume of waste over the contract period. Contracts of this magnitude often involve complex logistics, specialized equipment, and compliance with stringent environmental regulations. To provide a meaningful comparison, one would need to analyze contracts with similar scopes, durations, and geographic coverage awarded within the same timeframe to other federal agencies or even large municipal entities.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) and quality assurance measures for this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or quality assurance measures for this contract. However, for a firm-fixed-price contract of this nature, typical KPIs would likely include timely waste pickup, proper disposal according to environmental regulations, adherence to safety protocols, and accurate reporting. Quality assurance would likely be managed through site inspections, performance monitoring by contracting officer representatives (CORs), and potentially customer satisfaction surveys from the serviced units. Failure to meet these unstated KPIs could result in contractual remedies, although the specifics would be detailed in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and inspection clauses.

What is the track record of Phillips and Jordan, Incorporated in performing large federal contracts, particularly in waste management?

Phillips and Jordan, Incorporated has a history of performing large construction and infrastructure-related contracts, including significant work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies. While their primary focus often appears to be in areas like civil works, heavy construction, and disaster recovery, they have also engaged in services that could encompass waste management aspects, particularly in large-scale project support or site remediation. A deeper dive into their contract history would reveal specific past performance ratings and any issues encountered on similar federal contracts. Their ability to secure an $86.7 million contract suggests they met the government's requirements for capacity, experience, and financial stability at the time of award.

Were there any notable risks or challenges associated with this contract, either during bidding or performance?

Potential risks associated with a contract of this size and nature could include logistical challenges in waste collection and transportation, fluctuating fuel costs impacting operational expenses (though mitigated by fixed-price), environmental compliance risks, and potential labor issues. Given the 'AW' (Best Value) award type, risks related to the contractor's technical approach and management plan would have been assessed during the bidding phase. Performance risks might include unforeseen increases in waste volume, changes in regulatory requirements, or difficulties in accessing certain areas for collection. The relatively short duration (320 days) might suggest the contract was intended to mitigate long-term risks or address a specific, time-bound need.

How has federal spending on waste collection services evolved since this contract was awarded in 2005?

Federal spending on waste collection and management services has likely seen fluctuations and increases since 2005, driven by factors such as inflation, increased environmental regulations, growing emphasis on recycling and sustainability, and the expansion of federal operations. Technology advancements in waste tracking, processing, and disposal have also influenced spending patterns. While this specific $86.7 million contract represents a snapshot from 2005, overall federal outlays in this category would have adapted to these evolving demands and market conditions. Analyzing trends in NAICS code 562119 spending over the past two decades would provide a clearer picture of this evolution.

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