Department of Defense awards $39.4M facilities support contract to SOC Nevada LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,449,692 ($39.4M)

Contractor: SOC Nevada LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-02-09

End Date: 2017-12-31

Contract Duration: 691 days

Daily Burn Rate: $57.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CL,CT::IGF THIS DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES SDO SERVICES FOR SMCA RECEIPTS.

Place of Performance

Location: HAWTHORNE, MINERAL County, NEVADA, 89415

State: Nevada Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $39.4 million to SOC NEVADA LLC for work described as: IGF::CL,CT::IGF THIS DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES SDO SERVICES FOR SMCA RECEIPTS. Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract is for facilities support services, a critical component of base operations. 3. Fixed-price contract type may offer cost certainty for the government. 4. The duration of the contract is approximately 691 days. 5. The contract was awarded as a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle. 6. The geographic location of service is Nevada.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $39.4 million over approximately two years for facilities support services appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale base operations. Benchmarking against similar contracts for facilities maintenance and support at military installations of comparable size and scope would be necessary for a definitive value assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost predictability, but the ultimate value depends on the efficiency of service delivery and the scope of work performed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but this method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service offerings for the government. The open competition suggests that the agency sought the best value available in the market.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining competitive pricing and encourages a wider pool of contractors to vie for government business, potentially driving down costs.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and military personnel stationed at the facility in Nevada, who will receive essential facilities support services. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, custodial services, groundskeeping, and potentially security or logistical support for the facility. The geographic impact is concentrated in Nevada, supporting the operational readiness of a specific military installation. The contract supports jobs within the facilities management and support services sector in the Nevada region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics or quality assurance details in the provided data.
Potential for cost overruns if the firm-fixed-price contract does not adequately account for unforeseen maintenance issues.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical base support functions could pose a risk if performance falters.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
Firm-fixed-price contract type offers budget certainty.
SOC Nevada LLC's potential experience in government contracting for similar services.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a broad category encompassing a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. This sector is crucial for government operations, particularly for military installations where maintaining a functional and secure environment is paramount. The market includes numerous providers ranging from small, specialized firms to large, diversified companies. The contract value of approximately $39.4 million places it as a significant award within this sector, likely serving a substantial military installation.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor, SOC Nevada LLC, may choose to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses as part of their overall business strategy, which could provide opportunities within the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army. Performance monitoring, quality assurance checks, and invoice verification are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Logistics and Support Services
Government Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Potential for performance issues impacting critical base operations.
Risk of cost increases if contract scope requires modification.
Dependence on a single contractor for essential services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $39.4 million to SOC NEVADA LLC. IGF::CL,CT::IGF THIS DOCUMENT ESTABLISHES SDO SERVICES FOR SMCA RECEIPTS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SOC NEVADA 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 $39.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-02-09. End: 2017-12-31.

What is the track record of SOC Nevada LLC in performing similar facilities support services for the Department of Defense or other government agencies?

Assessing the track record of SOC Nevada LLC is crucial for understanding their capability to successfully execute this $39.4 million facilities support contract. A review of past performance evaluations, contract awards, and any reported issues or successes on similar government contracts would provide insight into their reliability, quality of service, and adherence to schedules and budgets. Information on their experience with firm-fixed-price contracts and the specific types of facilities services (e.g., maintenance, repair, custodial, groundskeeping) they have provided would be particularly relevant. Without specific past performance data, it is difficult to definitively gauge their suitability for this role, though the award itself implies they met initial qualification criteria.

How does the per-unit cost or scope of services in this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities support contracts?

A detailed comparison of the per-unit cost or the cost breakdown for specific services within this $39.4 million contract against industry benchmarks is essential for a thorough value assessment. Facilities support services encompass a wide array of tasks, and their costs can vary significantly based on geographic location, labor rates, complexity of the facility, and specific service requirements. Benchmarking would involve analyzing the cost per square foot for maintenance, the hourly rates for specialized repairs, or the overall cost as a percentage of facility value against data from similar government or commercial contracts. This analysis helps determine if the government is receiving competitive pricing and good value for the services rendered under this firm-fixed-price delivery order.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

Primary risk indicators for this contract include the potential for scope creep if the defined services are not precise, the risk of contractor underperformance impacting base operations, and the possibility of unforeseen cost increases despite the firm-fixed-price structure, especially if contract modifications become necessary. Dependence on a single contractor for critical functions also presents a risk. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract oversight by a COR, clear performance standards and metrics, regular progress meetings, and a well-defined process for addressing any deviations or issues. The government's ability to enforce contract terms and potentially seek remedies for non-performance also serves as a mitigation factor.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities support services at this specific Department of Defense installation or for similar installations in Nevada?

Understanding the historical spending for facilities support services at this installation or comparable ones in Nevada provides crucial context for evaluating the $39.4 million award. Analyzing past contract values, durations, and the types of services procured over several years can reveal trends in spending, identify potential cost efficiencies or escalations, and highlight any significant shifts in service providers or contract structures. This historical data allows for a more informed assessment of whether the current contract represents a reasonable continuation of past spending, a necessary increase due to evolving needs, or a potential area for cost savings. It also helps in identifying if this particular award is an outlier compared to previous investments in facilities support.

How does the duration and value of this delivery order compare to the parent contract it was issued under?

This contract is a delivery order valued at $39.4 million with an estimated duration of 691 days (approximately 23 months). To fully assess its significance, it needs to be compared against the parent contract vehicle from which it was issued. Understanding the total ceiling value, the overall period of performance of the parent contract, and how many other delivery orders have been placed against it provides critical context. If this delivery order represents a substantial portion of the parent contract's value or duration, it suggests this particular requirement is a major component of the overall program. Conversely, if the parent contract is very large and this is one of many orders, its relative impact might be smaller.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: DAY & Zimmermann Group Inc., the (UEI: 007913486)

Address: 2 S MAINE AVE, HAWTHORNE, NV, 89415

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $39,449,692

Exercised Options: $39,449,692

Current Obligation: $39,449,692

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W52P1J11D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline