DOJ's $4.8M contract for security services awarded to Akima Centerra Integrated Services LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,830,102 ($4.8M)

Contractor: Akima Centerra Integrated Services LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2025-10-01

End Date: 2026-09-30

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: Other

Official Description: CIRCUIT 7 D26 - FY 2026 CSO PROGRAM FUNDING

Place of Performance

Location: HERNDON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20171

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $4.8 million to AKIMA CENTERRA INTEGRATED SERVICES LLC for work described as: CIRCUIT 7 D26 - FY 2026 CSO PROGRAM FUNDING Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in safeguarding federal facilities. 2. Akima Centerra's award suggests strong performance or competitive positioning. 3. The contract duration of one year requires ongoing performance monitoring. 4. Security guard services are critical for maintaining operational continuity and safety. 5. The award falls within the broader context of federal security spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's value of approximately $4.8 million for a one-year period appears reasonable for comprehensive security guard services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for federal facilities of comparable size and scope would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The pricing structure, likely based on labor hours, needs to be evaluated against prevailing market rates for security personnel in the relevant geographic area to ensure competitive and fair pricing.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating a competitive process but with specific exclusions. While not a fully open competition from the outset, the 'after exclusion' suggests that multiple bidders were likely considered after initial source selection. The level of competition, while not fully open, should still drive price discovery and ensure a reasonable offer.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure the best value, even with initial source exclusions. The competition level influences the final price paid for essential security services.

Public Impact

Federal facilities managed by the U.S. Marshals Service will receive enhanced security. The contract ensures the provision of security guard and patrol services. Services are likely concentrated in Virginia, where the contractor is based. The contract supports employment for security personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for price creep if labor hours exceed initial estimates without re-negotiation.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical security functions requires robust performance management.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants scrutiny to ensure fairness and prevent undue market restriction.

Positive Signals

Award to an established entity like Akima Centerra suggests a degree of confidence in their capabilities.
The contract's defined period allows for performance evaluation and potential future competition.
The use of labor hours provides flexibility in adapting to changing security needs.

Sector Analysis

The security services sector is a significant component of federal contracting, encompassing a wide range of protective and support functions. This contract for security guards and patrol services falls under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services category. Federal spending in this area is consistently high, driven by the need to protect government assets, personnel, and facilities across various agencies. Comparable contracts often involve extensive background checks, specialized training, and adherence to strict operational protocols.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation and its impact on the small business ecosystem. Without this information, it's difficult to assess the contract's contribution to small business goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight will likely be managed by the U.S. Marshals Service contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are typically embedded in the contract's performance work statement, with penalties for non-compliance. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics may not always be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Protective Service Contracts
Department of Homeland Security Security Services
General Services Administration Schedules for Security Services
Department of Justice Facility Management Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Contract performance risk associated with security services.
Dependence on labor hours can lead to cost uncertainty.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $4.8 million to AKIMA CENTERRA INTEGRATED SERVICES LLC. CIRCUIT 7 D26 - FY 2026 CSO PROGRAM FUNDING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AKIMA CENTERRA INTEGRATED SERVICES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (U.S. Marshals Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-10-01. End: 2026-09-30.

What is Akima Centerra Integrated Services LLC's track record with federal security contracts?

Akima Centerra Integrated Services LLC, a subsidiary of Akima LLC, has a substantial history of performing government contracts, including those related to security and base operations support. They have been awarded numerous contracts across various federal agencies, demonstrating a capacity to manage complex service requirements. Their experience often includes providing personnel, logistics, and technical support in challenging environments. A review of their past performance ratings and any past performance issues on similar security contracts would be crucial for a comprehensive assessment. Their portfolio suggests they are a significant player in the federal contracting space for support services.

How does the $4.8 million contract value compare to similar security contracts awarded by the U.S. Marshals Service?

The $4.8 million contract value for a one-year period of security guard and patrol services is a moderate-sized award within the federal contracting landscape. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare it against contracts for similar services (e.g., physical security, guard services) awarded by the U.S. Marshals Service or other agencies with comparable facility protection needs. Factors such as the number of personnel required, the specific security levels mandated, the geographic location, and the duration of the contract significantly influence pricing. Without access to a detailed breakdown of the scope of work and the specific security requirements, a precise comparison is challenging, but the amount suggests a substantial operational requirement.

What are the primary risks associated with this type of security services contract?

Key risks include contractor performance failures, such as insufficient staffing, inadequate training, or failure to respond effectively to security incidents. There's also a risk of price escalation if labor costs increase significantly or if the scope of work expands beyond initial projections. Personnel-related risks, such as high turnover or security breaches involving contractor personnel, are also critical. Furthermore, reliance on a single contractor for essential security functions can create vulnerabilities if the contractor experiences financial instability or operational disruptions. Ensuring robust oversight and clear performance metrics are vital to mitigate these risks.

How effective are 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' in ensuring value for taxpayers?

This contracting method aims to balance the benefits of full and open competition with specific agency needs or market realities. By excluding certain sources, the agency might be targeting specific capabilities or ensuring participation from contractors with a proven track record in a niche area. While it can lead to a more focused competition among pre-qualified or specialized vendors, it inherently limits the pool of potential bidders compared to a truly open competition. The effectiveness in ensuring taxpayer value depends on how well the exclusion criteria are justified and whether a sufficient number of capable bidders remain to drive competitive pricing and innovation. If the exclusions are overly broad or unjustified, it could lead to reduced competition and potentially higher costs.

What is the historical spending pattern for security guard services by the U.S. Marshals Service?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for security guard services by the U.S. Marshals Service would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and the types of services procured. This data can indicate whether spending has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, and whether there's a trend towards larger or smaller contracts. Understanding past awardees and competition levels can also provide context for the current award. For instance, consistent awards to specific companies might suggest strong performance or market dominance, while frequent re-competition could indicate efforts to ensure competitive pricing. This historical perspective is crucial for assessing the current contract's alignment with past procurement strategies and budget allocations.

What are the implications of the contract's one-year duration (FY26) for long-term security planning?

A one-year contract duration, as indicated for FY26, provides flexibility but may not be ideal for long-term strategic security planning. While it allows for annual re-evaluation of needs and contractor performance, it can lead to frequent recompete cycles, which consume administrative resources and can disrupt continuity if a new contractor is selected. For highly specialized or critical security functions, longer-term contracts (often with option periods) can foster greater contractor investment in personnel and equipment, potentially leading to improved service quality and stability. However, shorter durations also allow agencies to adapt more quickly to changing threat landscapes or technological advancements without being locked into potentially outdated service models.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Guards and Patrol Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 15M10523RA4700003

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Nana Regional Corporation, Inc.

Address: 2553 DULLES VIEW DR, HERNDON, VA, 20171

Business Categories: Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,830,102

Exercised Options: $4,830,102

Current Obligation: $4,830,102

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15M10523DA4700003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline