NASA awards $3.08M contract for protective services in Louisiana to Chenega Global Protection
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $3,076,022 ($3.1M)
Contractor: Chenega Global Protection, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2025-10-01
End Date: 2026-09-30
Contract Duration: 364 days
Daily Burn Rate: $8.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: NASA PROTECTIVE SERVICES CONTRACT - SOUTH REGION - TASK ORDER PROVIDES PROTECTIVE SERVICES SUPPORT AT MAF
Place of Performance
Location: NEW ORLEANS, ORLEANS County, LOUISIANA, 70129
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $3.1 million to CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC for work described as: NASA PROTECTIVE SERVICES CONTRACT - SOUTH REGION - TASK ORDER PROVIDES PROTECTIVE SERVICES SUPPORT AT MAF Key points: 1. Contract focuses on essential security guard and patrol services for NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The contract duration is one year, with a firm-fixed-price structure. 4. This task order is part of a larger protective services contract. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 561612, indicating security services. 6. The contract is for the South Region, specifically Louisiana.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $3.08 million for a one-year protective services task order appears reasonable given the scope of security guard and patrol services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for federal facilities of comparable size and security needs would provide a more precise value assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure helps control costs for the government, but the ultimate value depends on the quality and effectiveness of the services provided.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which implies that proposals were solicited from all eligible responsible sources. While the specific number of bidders is not provided, this procurement method generally fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and service offerings for the government. The exclusion of sources clause might indicate specific requirements that limited the pool initially, but the overall intent was broad competition.
Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to offer their best prices and services, potentially driving down costs and improving the quality of security provided at the NASA facility.
Public Impact
Benefits NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility by ensuring a secure operational environment. Provides critical protective services, including security guards and patrol support. Geographic impact is localized to the South Region of NASA operations in Louisiana. Supports the workforce employed by Chenega Global Protection, LLC.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Lack of specific performance metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) in the provided data makes it difficult to assess service quality.
- The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation to understand its potential impact on the breadth of competition.
- No information is available on the contractor's past performance specifically for this type of NASA facility.
Positive Signals
- Awarded under a full and open competition, indicating a structured and potentially competitive process.
- The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
- The contract is for a defined period, allowing for reassessment and potential re-competition.
Sector Analysis
The security services sector is a significant component of the broader government contracting landscape, encompassing a wide range of services from physical security to cybersecurity. Federal agencies like NASA rely heavily on these services to protect personnel, facilities, and sensitive information. Spending in this sector is driven by national security needs, infrastructure protection, and regulatory compliance. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other federal contracts for security guards and patrol services at similar government installations.
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. The prime contractor, Chenega Global Protection, LLC, may have its own small business subcontracting goals as part of its broader contractual obligations, but this specific task order does not mandate it.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contract administration office within NASA. Performance monitoring and quality assurance are crucial to ensure the protective services meet the required standards. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract is suspected.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Protective Services Contracts
- Federal Security Guard Services
- Government Facility Security
- Chenega Global Protection Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for performance issues if contractor personnel are not adequately trained or supervised.
- Risk of security breaches if protocols are not strictly followed.
- Dependency on a single contractor for critical security functions.
- Limited transparency on the specific number of bidders in the competitive process.
Tags
nasa, protective-services, security-guards, louisiana, chenega-global-protection, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, task-order, facility-security, south-region
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $3.1 million to CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC. NASA PROTECTIVE SERVICES CONTRACT - SOUTH REGION - TASK ORDER PROVIDES PROTECTIVE SERVICES SUPPORT AT MAF
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $3.1 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2025-10-01. End: 2026-09-30.
What is the track record of Chenega Global Protection, LLC in providing protective services to federal agencies, particularly NASA?
Chenega Global Protection, LLC is a significant federal contractor with a history of providing security and protective services across various government agencies. While specific details on their performance for NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility under this particular task order are not yet available due to its recent award, the company has experience with similar contracts. A deeper dive into their contract history, including past performance reviews and any reported issues or commendations on federal procurement platforms, would be necessary to fully assess their track record. Their portfolio often includes guard services, physical security, and emergency response, aligning with the requirements of this NASA contract. Understanding their experience with firm-fixed-price contracts and their ability to meet stringent security requirements is key.
How does the $3.08 million value of this one-year task order compare to similar protective services contracts awarded by NASA or other federal agencies?
The $3.08 million value for a one-year protective services task order at a NASA facility like the Michoud Assembly Facility is within a typical range for such services. However, a precise comparison requires detailed benchmarking against contracts for facilities of similar size, operational tempo, and security requirements. Factors influencing cost include the number of security personnel required, the hours of coverage, the specific security technologies employed, and the geographic location's labor rates. Without access to specific details on the scope of work, number of personnel, and service level agreements for this contract, it's challenging to definitively state if it represents superior or inferior value. Reviewing historical NASA contracts for protective services at other major facilities could provide a more robust comparison.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?
Primary risks for this protective services contract include potential lapses in security coverage, inadequate performance by the contractor's personnel, and cost overruns if the firm-fixed-price structure is not managed effectively. Risks also exist if the contractor fails to adhere to NASA's specific security protocols or if there are issues with personnel vetting and retention. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust contract oversight by NASA officials, clearly defined performance standards and metrics, regular performance reviews, and the ability to enforce penalties or terminate the contract for non-performance. The firm-fixed-price nature itself acts as a cost mitigation tool for the government, shifting some financial risk to the contractor. Ensuring the contractor maintains adequate insurance and bonding also mitigates financial risks.
How effective is the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method in ensuring optimal value for taxpayers in this specific instance?
The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad competition with specific needs. While 'full and open' suggests an intention to solicit widely, the 'exclusion of sources' indicates that certain potential bidders were intentionally not considered, perhaps due to specialized requirements, existing contract vehicles, or prior performance issues with other entities. This can limit the number of actual competitors. If the exclusion was justified and the remaining pool was still sufficiently competitive, it could lead to good value. However, if it significantly reduced competition, it might have led to higher prices than a truly unrestricted full and open competition. The effectiveness for taxpayers hinges on whether the exclusion was necessary and if the resulting competition still drove a fair price and high-quality service.
What are the historical spending patterns for protective services at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility or similar NASA centers?
Historical spending patterns for protective services at NASA facilities like the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) are crucial for context. Analyzing past contracts for MAF or comparable NASA centers (e.g., Kennedy Space Center, Johnson Space Center) would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and the types of services procured. This data helps in understanding if the current $3.08 million award for a one-year task order is consistent with historical spending, higher, or lower. It can also highlight shifts in security requirements or contractor performance over time. Examining these patterns can inform future budget planning and provide a benchmark for assessing the value-for-money of current and future contracts in this category.
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
Address: 14420 ALBEMARLE POINT PL STE 100, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, 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: $5,204,354
Exercised Options: $5,204,354
Current Obligation: $3,076,022
Actual Outlays: $1,301,089
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 80KSC022DA001
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2025-10-01
Current End Date: 2026-09-30
Potential End Date: 2026-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-19
More Contracts from Chenega Global Protection, LLC
- Armed Security Guards for Atlanta&ft. Collins — $110.1M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- ATL FT Collins Guards Bridge — $33.3M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Base Award for Security and Access Control Services in Support of Usag-Ka — $26.3M (Department of Defense)
- Services — $23.9M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Nasa Protective Services Contract - South Region (npsc-Sr) KSC Task Order for Baseline and Pre-Priced Items — $16.7M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →