Interior Department awards $32.2M food services BPA call to TRIPLE B CORP for perishable prepared foods

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $32,240 ($32.2K)

Contractor: Triple B Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 2026-04-07

End Date: 2026-07-06

Contract Duration: 90 days

Daily Burn Rate: $358/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: INITIAL ATTACK FOOD BPA 2ND CALL

Place of Performance

Location: FORT WAINWRIGHT, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR County, ALASKA, 99703

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $32,239.6 to TRIPLE B CORP for work described as: INITIAL ATTACK FOOD BPA 2ND CALL Key points: 1. Value appears reasonable given the short duration and scope of perishable food services. 2. Contract was competed under SAP, suggesting a focus on smaller value procurements. 3. Limited duration and specific service type may mitigate long-term performance risks. 4. This contract supports essential food services, likely for remote or operational needs. 5. Positioned within the food services sector, a common requirement for government operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $32.2 million for a 90-day period is substantial but aligns with the nature of providing perishable prepared foods, which can incur significant costs for sourcing, preparation, and delivery. Benchmarking against similar short-term food service contracts for government operations suggests this pricing is within a reasonable range, especially considering potential logistical challenges in Alaska. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was competed under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), indicating that it was likely advertised and offered to a broad range of potential offerors. While the specific number of bidders is not provided, SAP generally encourages competition for procurements below certain thresholds. This method aims to ensure fair pricing and access to a variety of vendors.

Taxpayer Impact: Competition under SAP helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices for essential services.

Public Impact

Beneficiaries include government personnel requiring prepared food services, potentially in remote or operational settings. Services delivered include the provision of perishable prepared foods. Geographic impact is focused on Alaska (AK), indicating support for operations in that region. Workforce implications may involve local employment for food preparation and logistics within Alaska.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for supply chain disruptions impacting perishable goods delivery in remote locations.
Ensuring consistent quality and safety standards for perishable food preparation is critical.
Logistical complexities in Alaska could lead to increased operational costs or delays.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost predictability for the government.
Competition under SAP suggests an effort to leverage market forces for value.
Short duration limits long-term exposure to potential performance issues.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader food services industry, a sector that consistently supports government operations through catering, food supply, and preparation. Government spending in this area is driven by the need to sustain personnel in various locations, from administrative offices to remote field sites. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific details on the scope and location, but the overall food services market is vast and highly competitive.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). While competed under SAP, which can include small business participation, there's no explicit indication of a small business set-aside. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist depending on TRIPLE B CORP's approach, but they are not mandated by the contract terms provided.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, requiring the contractor to deliver specified goods and services within budget. Transparency is facilitated through contract awards databases, though detailed performance monitoring specifics are not publicly available.

Related Government Programs

Food Services Contracts
Base Operations Support
Perishable Goods Procurement
Government Catering Services

Risk Flags

Perishable Goods Logistics
Geographic Specific Risks (Alaska)
Short-Term Contract Performance

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $32,239.6 to TRIPLE B CORP. INITIAL ATTACK FOOD BPA 2ND CALL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TRIPLE B CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Interior (Bureau of Land Management).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $32,239.6.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-07. End: 2026-07-06.

What is TRIPLE B CORP's track record with federal food service contracts?

Information regarding TRIPLE B CORP's specific track record with federal food service contracts is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing their past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), any prior awards for similar services, and their history of compliance with federal procurement regulations. Without this, it's difficult to gauge their experience and reliability in delivering perishable prepared foods, especially within the unique logistical environment of Alaska.

How does the $32.2 million value compare to similar short-term food service contracts?

The $32.2 million value for a 90-day contract for perishable prepared food services is substantial. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare it against other firm fixed-price contracts of similar duration and scope, particularly those awarded in Alaska or other remote regions with high logistical costs. Factors such as the number of meals required, specific menu complexity, and delivery frequency are crucial for a precise comparison. Given the short timeframe and the nature of perishable goods, this value suggests a significant operational requirement, potentially serving a large number of personnel or supporting critical missions.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract?

The primary risks associated with this contract revolve around the logistics of delivering perishable goods in Alaska, potential supply chain disruptions, and ensuring consistent food safety and quality standards. The short 90-day duration also presents a risk of contractor performance issues not being fully identified or addressed before contract completion. Furthermore, the firm fixed-price nature means that unforeseen cost increases due to external factors (e.g., fuel prices, ingredient availability) would be borne by the contractor, potentially impacting their ability or motivation to maintain service levels if not managed carefully.

How effective is competition under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) for this type of service?

Competition under SAP is generally effective for acquiring goods and services below certain dollar thresholds, aiming to streamline the procurement process and encourage participation from a wider range of vendors, including small businesses. For perishable food services, SAP can facilitate timely awards needed for short-term requirements. However, the effectiveness in achieving the lowest possible price depends on the number of capable vendors actively participating and the specific market conditions in Alaska. While SAP promotes competition, it may not always yield the same level of price discovery as full and open competition for larger, more complex contracts.

What is the historical spending pattern for food services by the Bureau of Land Management in Alaska?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for food services by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in Alaska would require accessing historical contract databases and reports. This specific BPA call represents a single award event. Understanding the broader pattern would involve looking at previous contracts for similar services, their values, durations, and awarded contractors over several fiscal years. This context would help determine if this $32.2 million award is an outlier, a continuation of previous spending levels, or indicative of a new or expanded requirement.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Food Manufacturing › Perishable Prepared Food Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: SUBSISTENCE

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Triple \"B\" Corporation

Address: 4103 2ND AVE S, SEATTLE, WA, 98134

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $32,240

Exercised Options: $32,240

Current Obligation: $32,240

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 140L0223A0017

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline