DHS awarded $41.7M for security guards, with competition potentially limited by exclusion of sources

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $41,661,355 ($41.7M)

Contractor: Ahtna Support & Training Services LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2017-11-02

End Date: 2018-11-30

Contract Duration: 393 days

Daily Burn Rate: $106.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF GUARD SERVICES FOR PIDC

Place of Performance

Location: ANCHORAGE, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99503

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $41.7 million to AHTNA SUPPORT & TRAINING SERVICES LLC for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF GUARD SERVICES FOR PIDC Key points: 1. Contract value appears substantial for security guard services. 2. The contract type 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' warrants further investigation into the reasons for exclusion. 3. The duration of the contract (393 days) is relatively short for its value. 4. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts performance risk to the contractor. 5. The geographic location (Alaska) may influence labor costs and availability. 6. The specific NAICS code (561612) indicates a focus on security guard and patrol services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific service details and comparable contract data. The $41.7 million award over approximately 13 months suggests a significant operational requirement. However, the absence of detailed performance metrics or comparisons makes it difficult to definitively assess value for money. The fixed-price contract structure implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator if the price is competitive.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES'. This designation indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded. The specific reasons for this exclusion are not provided and would be critical to understanding the true level of competition. A limited competition, even if initially open, can lead to less competitive pricing and potentially fewer innovative solutions compared to a truly open process.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have received less competitive pricing due to the exclusion of certain sources. Understanding the rationale behind the exclusion is crucial to determine if this was justified or if it resulted in a suboptimal outcome for the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), receiving security services. The services delivered are security guard and patrol functions, likely protecting federal facilities or assets. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska (ST: AK, SN: ALASKA). Workforce implications include employment for security personnel within Alaska, managed by AHTNA SUPPORT & TRAINING SERVICES LLC.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' clause raises concerns about the breadth of competition and potential for higher costs.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the services provided.
The contract duration is relatively short for the awarded amount, potentially indicating a specific, time-bound need or a precursor to future contracts.

Positive Signals

The contract is firm fixed-price, which generally provides cost certainty for the government.
The award to AHTNA SUPPORT & TRAINING SERVICES LLC, potentially a business with ties to the region, could support local economic development.

Sector Analysis

The security guard and patrol services sector (NAICS 561612) is a significant part of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. Federal spending in this area supports a wide range of government functions, from facility protection to event security. This contract represents a substantial investment within this sector for DHS, specifically for ICE operations in Alaska. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale security contracts awarded by federal agencies for similar services and geographic regions.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract was specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, AHTNA SUPPORT & TRAINING SERVICES LLC, is likely not a small business for the purpose of this contract. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist, but are not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The impact on the broader small business ecosystem would depend on the extent of any subcontracting efforts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the purview of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security. Standard oversight mechanisms would include contract performance monitoring, invoice review, and compliance checks. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available. The Inspector General for DHS would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

DHS Security Contracts
ICE Facility Support Services
Federal Security Guard Services
Alaska Federal Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited Competition Due to Source Exclusion
Lack of Detailed Performance Data
Potential for Higher Costs Due to Geographic Location

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $41.7 million to AHTNA SUPPORT & TRAINING SERVICES LLC. IGF::CT::IGF GUARD SERVICES FOR PIDC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AHTNA SUPPORT & TRAINING SERVICES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $41.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-11-02. End: 2018-11-30.

What were the specific reasons for the 'exclusion of sources' in this full and open competition?

The designation 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' implies that while the competition was intended to be open, certain potential bidders were deliberately excluded. The specific reasons for this exclusion are not detailed in the provided data. Common justifications for excluding sources can include national security concerns, proprietary technology limitations, or specific performance requirements that only a limited number of entities could meet. Without further documentation or agency explanation, it is impossible to ascertain the precise rationale. This exclusion is significant because it inherently limits the competitive landscape, potentially impacting the final price and the range of solutions considered. It raises a flag for further investigation into whether the exclusion was justified and served the government's best interest, or if it unduly restricted competition.

How does the $41.7 million contract value compare to similar security guard contracts awarded by DHS or other federal agencies?

Directly comparing the $41.7 million value requires access to a comprehensive database of similar federal contracts, including details on the scope of services, duration, and geographic location. However, as a general benchmark, $41.7 million awarded over approximately 13 months (November 2017 to November 2018) represents a substantial contract for security guard and patrol services. Large-scale federal security contracts can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars, depending on the agency's needs, the number of facilities or personnel protected, and the complexity of the security requirements. For instance, contracts for securing large federal buildings, critical infrastructure, or extensive border patrol support often reach these figures. The specific location in Alaska might also influence the cost, potentially increasing it due to logistical challenges and higher labor costs compared to the continental U.S. Without more granular data on comparable contracts, it's difficult to definitively state if this award was high or low, but its magnitude suggests a significant operational requirement.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award?

The primary risk associated with 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' is the potential for reduced competition, which can lead to higher prices for the government and taxpayers. When sources are excluded, the pool of potential bidders shrinks, diminishing the pressure on remaining bidders to offer their most competitive pricing. This can also limit the government's access to a wider range of innovative solutions or specialized expertise that excluded contractors might possess. Furthermore, the exclusion process itself can be a point of contention, potentially leading to protests or legal challenges if excluded parties believe the exclusion was unjustified. Transparency is crucial; if the reasons for exclusion are not clearly documented and justifiable, it raises concerns about fairness and potential favoritism. This type of award necessitates careful scrutiny to ensure that the exclusion was indeed necessary and in the government's best interest.

What performance metrics or quality assurance measures are typically in place for such security guard contracts?

For federal security guard contracts, performance metrics and quality assurance measures are critical to ensure the effectiveness and reliability of the services. While not detailed in the provided data, typical metrics often include response times to incidents, adherence to post orders, guard attentiveness and professionalism, incident reporting accuracy, and compliance with security protocols. Quality assurance typically involves regular site inspections by government representatives, performance reviews, and feedback mechanisms from facility personnel. Contracts often include specific clauses for performance standards, with potential penalties or remedies for failing to meet them. For a contract of this value, a robust Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) would likely be in place, outlining how the government will monitor and evaluate the contractor's performance throughout the contract period to ensure mission requirements are met.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type impact cost control and risk for this security contract?

A Firm Fixed-Price (FFP) contract type, as indicated for this award, is generally considered advantageous for the government when the scope of work is well-defined and risks are manageable. Under an FFP contract, the price is set and not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's actual costs. This provides the government with cost certainty, making budgeting more predictable. The primary risk is shifted to the contractor, who must absorb any cost overruns incurred while still delivering the agreed-upon goods or services. For security guard services, where labor and operational costs are the main components, an FFP contract incentivizes the contractor to manage their resources efficiently to maximize profit. The main risk for the government in an FFP contract is paying a potentially higher initial price compared to other contract types, as the contractor typically includes a contingency for unforeseen risks. However, it protects against cost growth if the contractor's expenses exceed estimates.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded in Alaska (ST: AK, SN: ALASKA)?

The contract's award to Alaska (ST: AK, SN: ALASKA) has several potential implications. Firstly, it suggests the security services are required for federal facilities or operations located within the state. This geographic focus may necessitate the contractor having a local presence or established logistical capabilities in Alaska. Secondly, operating in Alaska can present unique challenges and potentially higher costs compared to the continental U.S. Factors such as climate, remote locations, higher cost of living, and specialized labor requirements can influence pricing. Awarding contracts in specific regions can also be a strategy to support local economies and businesses, although the data does not specify if AHTNA SUPPORT & TRAINING SERVICES LLC is an Alaskan-based entity. Understanding the specific locations within Alaska where services are rendered would provide further context on the operational demands and associated costs.

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

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Ahtna, Incorporated (UEI: 069586055)

Address: 110 W 38TH AVE STE 200D, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, American Indian Owned Business, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $41,661,355

Exercised Options: $41,661,355

Current Obligation: $41,661,355

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSCEDM15D00001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline