AFCAP Support contract awarded to CKGS, LLC for over $29M, spanning 3 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $29,158,543 ($29.2M)

Contractor: Ckgs, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-10-26

End Date: 2014-11-28

Contract Duration: 1,129 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: AFCAP SUPPORT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $29.2 million to CKGS, LLC for work described as: AFCAP SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for the duration and scope of facilities support services. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to better pricing. 3. No explicit risk indicators are immediately apparent from the provided data. 4. Performance context is limited without specific metrics on service delivery. 5. This contract falls within the broader facilities management and support services sector. 6. The contract was awarded as a delivery order, indicating it was part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle or a similar framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $29.16 million over three years for facilities support services appears to be within a reasonable range. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facilities support contracts would provide a more precise assessment, but the duration and scope suggest a substantial undertaking. The firm-fixed-price contract type generally offers good value predictability for the government, assuming the contractor can manage costs effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. With 5 bids received, this suggests a healthy level of competition for this requirement. A competitive process like this typically drives down prices and encourages contractors to offer their best value propositions to secure the award.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition ensures that taxpayer dollars are likely being used efficiently, as multiple companies vied for the contract, pushing for competitive pricing.

Public Impact

The Department of the Air Force benefits from comprehensive facilities support services, ensuring operational readiness. Services likely include maintenance, repair, and potentially other facility management functions critical to Air Force installations. The geographic impact is tied to the specific Air Force installations where CKGS, LLC provides support. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for personnel involved in facilities management and support roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly, given the nature of facilities support.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical infrastructure support could pose a risk if performance falters.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process.
Award to CKGS, LLC, implies they met the government's requirements and qualifications.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. This sector is critical for government operations, ensuring that facilities are functional, safe, and well-maintained. The market size for federal facilities support is substantial, with numerous contracts awarded annually across various agencies. This specific contract's value places it as a significant award within this domain.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside requirement. However, the prime contractor, CKGS, LLC, may still engage small businesses as subcontractors, though this is not mandated by the contract's award terms.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contract administration team within the Department of the Air Force. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and invoice review are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Facilities Maintenance Services
Base Operations Support
Logistics and Support Services
Government Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Potential for performance issues if contractor resources are strained.
Risk of cost increases if scope is not clearly defined and managed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $29.2 million to CKGS, LLC. AFCAP SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CKGS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $29.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-10-26. End: 2014-11-28.

What is the track record of CKGS, LLC in performing similar federal contracts?

Assessing the track record of CKGS, LLC requires a deeper dive into their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving facilities support services. While this specific contract award indicates they were deemed capable, a comprehensive review would involve examining past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and their history with similar agencies and contract types. Without access to detailed past performance information, it's difficult to definitively gauge their reliability and expertise. However, winning a full and open competition for a contract of this magnitude suggests a demonstrated capability to meet stringent government requirements.

How does the awarded value compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities support contracts?

The awarded value of approximately $29.16 million over three years for facilities support services needs to be benchmarked against industry standards for comparable contracts. Factors such as the specific services included (e.g., janitorial, HVAC maintenance, groundskeeping, security), the geographic location of the facilities, and the size and complexity of the installations significantly influence pricing. A preliminary assessment suggests the value is substantial, reflecting a comprehensive service package. However, a definitive value-for-money assessment requires detailed comparison with similar contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies, considering the specific scope of work and service level agreements.

What are the primary risks associated with this type of facilities support contract?

Primary risks associated with facilities support contracts include potential for scope creep, where the scope of work expands beyond the original agreement without corresponding adjustments to cost and schedule. Performance degradation is another key risk; failure to maintain facilities adequately can impact operational readiness and safety. Contractor financial stability and workforce management are also critical; disruptions in either can lead to service interruptions. Furthermore, reliance on a single contractor for essential services can create vulnerabilities if the contractor faces unforeseen challenges. Effective contract management, clear performance metrics, and robust oversight are crucial to mitigating these risks.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in managing costs for facilities support?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally effective in managing costs for facilities support services because it shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor. The government agrees to pay a set price, providing budget certainty. This incentivizes the contractor to control costs and operate efficiently to maximize profit. For services with well-defined scopes, like many aspects of facilities maintenance, FFP can be highly advantageous. However, if the scope is not precisely defined or if unforeseen issues arise, the contractor may face significant financial strain, potentially impacting performance or leading to requests for contract modifications. Clear definition of requirements is key to the success of FFP.

What is the historical spending pattern for AFCAP SUPPORT or similar services within the Department of the Air Force?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for 'AFCAP SUPPORT' or similar facilities support services within the Department of the Air Force is crucial for understanding budget trends and identifying potential anomalies. Without specific historical data for this exact contract name, we can infer that the Air Force consistently spends significant amounts on facilities management and support across its numerous installations. This spending typically fluctuates based on infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and base consolidation or expansion. Examining multi-year spending trends for facilities support contracts can reveal patterns of investment, identify periods of increased or decreased activity, and provide context for the current contract's value relative to past expenditures.

What are the implications of awarding a delivery order versus a standalone contract for this service?

Awarding this service as a delivery order implies it was issued under a pre-existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar type of contract vehicle. This approach offers several advantages: it streamlines the procurement process for subsequent needs, potentially reduces administrative burden, and allows for task-specific competition or pre-negotiated terms. For the government, it provides flexibility to order services as needed within the scope and ceiling of the parent IDIQ contract. For the contractor, it offers a potential stream of work. The implications are generally positive for efficiency and responsiveness, provided the parent IDIQ contract itself was competitively awarded and well-structured.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: FA300204R0025

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CH2M Hill Companies, Ltd. (UEI: 027620574)

Address: 9191 SOUTH JAMAICA STREET, ENGLEWOOD, CO, 80112

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,158,543

Exercised Options: $29,158,543

Current Obligation: $29,158,543

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 1

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA300206D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline