Army's $1.1B facilities support contract to KBR Services, LLC awarded in 2003, ending in 2012
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $1,109,236,717 ($1.1B)
Contractor: KBR Services, LLC
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2003-07-24
End Date: 2012-12-30
Contract Duration: 3,447 days
Daily Burn Rate: $321.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: 200310!000831!2100!AA09 !U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !DAAA0902D0007 !A!N! !Y!0043 !20030724!20120131!016111226!016111226!964409007!N!BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, A DIVIS!4100 CLINTON DRIVE !HOUSTON !TX!77020!35000!201!48!HOUSTON !HARRIS !TEXAS !+000092000000!N!N!000000000000!AD23!RDTE/SERVICES-ADV TECH DEV !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !561210!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!U!R!2!003!B! !C!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!A!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $1.11 billion to KBR SERVICES, LLC for work described as: 200310!000831!2100!AA09 !U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !DAAA0902D0007 !A!N! !Y!0043 !20030724!20120131!016111226!016111226!964409007!N!BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, A DIVIS!4100 CLINTON DRIVE !HOUSTON !TX!77020!35000!201!48!HOUSTON !HARRI… Key points: 1. Contract value significantly exceeded initial estimates, indicating potential for cost overruns or scope expansion. 2. Long contract duration suggests a need for sustained services, but also raises concerns about adaptability to changing requirements. 3. Awarded under full and open competition, implying a robust bidding process. 4. The contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee) can incentivize performance but may also lead to higher costs if not managed carefully. 5. Facilities Support Services is a broad category, making direct comparisons challenging without more specific service details. 6. The significant value suggests a critical role in supporting Army operations.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The final award amount of $1.1 billion for this facilities support contract is substantially higher than the initial reported value of $35,000, which is a significant discrepancy. While the contract spanned nearly a decade, this escalation warrants scrutiny. Benchmarking against similar long-term, large-scale facilities support contracts for military branches would be necessary to determine if the final cost was justified by the services rendered and any scope changes over time. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure also introduces variability that needs careful management to ensure value.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. The presence of multiple bidders generally promotes competitive pricing and encourages contractors to offer their best value. However, the long duration and significant value of this contract might have attracted a limited pool of highly specialized large businesses, potentially influencing the intensity of the competition.
Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process which should theoretically lead to more favorable pricing. However, the substantial final award value suggests that either the initial competition was not as price-sensitive as expected, or significant contract modifications and scope increases occurred over its lifespan.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Army units and personnel who rely on the facilities support services for operational readiness. Services delivered likely encompassed a wide range of facility maintenance, operations, and management functions essential for Army installations. The geographic impact would be concentrated at the Army installations where KBR Services, LLC provided support. Workforce implications include the direct employment of personnel by KBR Services, LLC and potentially its subcontractors, supporting local economies near Army bases.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Significant increase in contract value from initial award to final expenditure suggests potential for cost growth and requires detailed review of modifications.
- The long contract duration (nearly 9 years) may have led to inefficiencies or a lack of adaptation to evolving facility management best practices.
- Cost Plus Award Fee contracts, while incentivizing performance, can lead to higher overall costs if award criteria are not strictly managed or if costs escalate significantly.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a structured and potentially competitive procurement process.
- The contract provided essential facilities support, crucial for maintaining Army operational capabilities.
- The long duration suggests a stable, long-term partnership that could lead to efficiencies through accumulated expertise.
Sector Analysis
Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a broad category encompassing a wide range of services for the operation and maintenance of buildings and other facilities. This sector is critical for government operations, ensuring that infrastructure is functional and maintained. The market size for government facilities support is substantial, with significant spending across all branches of the military and civilian agencies. This contract represents a major portion of spending within this category for the Department of the Army during its period of performance.
Small Business Impact
Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans for this contract was not explicitly detailed in the provided data. Given the large scale and broad nature of facilities support services, it is common for prime contractors to utilize subcontractors. Analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses were effectively included in the subcontracting chain to ensure they benefited from this large federal award.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Army. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies performance metrics and reviews that inform award fee determinations. Inspector General (IG) reports or audits could provide further insight into the contract's execution, cost controls, and overall effectiveness, though specific IG involvement is not detailed here.
Related Government Programs
- Base Operations Support (BOS)
- Logistics and Supply Chain Management
- Infrastructure Maintenance and Repair
- Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
- Government Facilities Management
Risk Flags
- Significant cost escalation from initial estimate to final award.
- Long contract duration may indicate potential for outdated practices or reduced flexibility.
- CPAF contract type requires careful monitoring to ensure value for money.
Tags
department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, facilities-support-services, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, long-duration, kbr-services-llc, army-industrial-operations, rdte-services-adv-tech-dev, houston-texas
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $1.11 billion to KBR SERVICES, LLC. 200310!000831!2100!AA09 !U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS !DAAA0902D0007 !A!N! !Y!0043 !20030724!20120131!016111226!016111226!964409007!N!BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, A DIVIS!4100 CLINTON DRIVE !HOUSTON !TX!77020!35000!201!48!HOUSTON !HARRIS !TEXAS !+000092000000!N!N!000000000000!AD23!RDTE/SERVICES-ADV TECH DEV !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !561210!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !99990909!B
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is KBR SERVICES, LLC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $1.11 billion.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2003-07-24. End: 2012-12-30.
What was the initial estimated value of the contract versus the final awarded amount, and what factors contributed to the difference?
The provided data indicates an initial value of $35,000, which is extremely low compared to the final awarded amount of $1,109,236,716.56. This massive discrepancy suggests that the $35,000 figure likely represented a very preliminary estimate, a placeholder, or perhaps the value of an initial task order or modification, rather than the total anticipated value. The substantial increase to over $1.1 billion over the contract's lifespan (2003-2012) points to significant scope expansion, multiple contract modifications, or a substantial underestimation of the full requirements at the time of initial award. Detailed contract modification histories and program office justifications would be necessary to fully understand the drivers of this cost escalation.
How did the performance of KBR Services, LLC compare to the award criteria under the Cost Plus Award Fee structure?
The provided data does not contain specific details about KBR Services, LLC's performance against the award criteria for this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract. CPAF contracts typically involve a base fee plus an award amount determined by the government's assessment of the contractor's performance against predefined metrics related to cost, schedule, technical objectives, and other factors. To assess performance, one would need access to the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS), the specific award fee criteria, and the government's periodic evaluations and fee determinations. Without this information, it's impossible to definitively state how well KBR performed relative to the incentives.
What specific facilities support services were included under this contract, and were there significant changes in scope over its duration?
The contract falls under NAICS code 561210 (Facilities Support Services), which is a broad category. While the specific services are not detailed in the summary data, typical services under such contracts include operation and maintenance of facilities, groundskeeping, custodial services, pest control, refuse collection, laundry and dry-cleaning services, and potentially minor repair and alteration work. Given the contract's substantial value ($1.1 billion) and long duration (nearly 9 years), it is highly probable that the scope of services evolved significantly through contract modifications. Understanding these changes would require reviewing the contract's history of modifications and task orders to identify any expansions or reductions in service requirements.
What was the historical spending trend for facilities support services by the Department of the Army in the years surrounding this contract's award and performance?
The provided data focuses on a single contract and does not offer historical spending trends for the Department of the Army's facilities support services. To analyze historical spending, one would need access to broader federal procurement databases (like USASpending.gov or FPDS) to aggregate spending on relevant NAICS codes (e.g., 561210) by the Department of the Army over several fiscal years. This would allow for comparison of this contract's value against the Army's overall budget for such services, identifying whether spending increased, decreased, or remained stable during that period, and how this specific contract represented a significant portion of that spending.
Were there any notable issues or challenges reported by oversight bodies (e.g., IG) regarding this specific contract?
The provided summary data does not contain specific information regarding oversight reports or challenges related to this particular contract. To determine if there were any notable issues, one would need to search the databases of relevant Inspector Generals, such as the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DoD OIG), for audits, investigations, or reports that mention this contract (identified by contract number DAAA0902D0007 or the contractor KBR Services, LLC in relation to Army facilities support). Such reports could highlight issues related to cost management, performance, compliance, or other areas of concern.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 3
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Brown & Root Industrial Services Holdings, LLC
Address: 601 JEFFERSON ST, HOUSTON, TX, 77002
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: DAAA0902D0007
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2003-07-24
Current End Date: 2012-12-30
Potential End Date: 2012-12-30 12:12:00
Last Modified: 2025-07-31
More Contracts from KBR Services, LLC
- Follow on Task Order to 139 IS NOW Task Order 159 — $8.9B (Department of Defense)
- 200612!001884!2100!w52p1j!u.s. Army Industrial Operations !daaa0902d0007 !A!N! !Y!0139 ! !20060822!20120131!133469119!133469119!964409007!n!kellogg Brown&root Services,!4100 Clinton DRY !houston !TX!77020!00000! !IZ! ! !iraq !+000400000000!n!n!000000000000!r706!logistics Support Services !S1 !services !000 !NOT Discernable !561210!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!u!r!2!003!b! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!M!N! ! ! ! ! !a!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $7.9B (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $6.1B (Department of Defense)
- 200509!001151!2100!w52p1j!u.s. Army Industrial Operations !daaa0902d0007 !A!N! !Y!0089 ! !20050613!20120131!133469119!133469119!964409007!n!kellogg Brown&root Services,!4100 Clinton DR !houston !TX!77020!00000! !IZ!* !* !iraq !+000135000000!n!n!000000000000!r706!logistics Support Services !S1 !services !000 !* !561210!E! !5!B!S! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !a!u!r!2!003!b! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!M!N! ! ! ! ! !a!a!000!a!b!n! ! !Y! ! ! !0001! ! — $4.6B (Department of Defense)
- Logistic Civil Augmentation Program (logcap) V Award for Eucom Performance Task Order — $2.2B (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)