Department of Defense awards $38.8M contract for building maintenance, with 2 bidders competing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $38,827,595 ($38.8M)

Contractor: Leebcor Services LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2016-09-29

End Date: 2025-03-12

Contract Duration: 3,086 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF BLDG 3105 TBUP

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, MUSCOGEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $38.8 million to LEEBCOR SERVICES LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BLDG 3105 TBUP Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the 3086-day duration and fixed-price structure. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a moderately competitive environment with two bidders. 3. Risk indicators are low, with a firm fixed-price contract and established contractor. 4. Performance context suggests ongoing facility support requirements for the Army. 5. Sector positioning is within the commercial and institutional building construction domain.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $38.8 million over approximately 8.5 years suggests a consistent annual spend. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facility maintenance contracts is challenging without more granular data on services provided. However, the firm fixed-price nature implies that the contractor bears cost overruns, which is generally favorable for the government. The price appears to be within a reasonable range for long-term, comprehensive building operations and maintenance.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources were excluded. With two bidders, the competition level is moderate. This suggests that while some price discovery occurred, the limited number of participants might have restricted the full potential for competitive pricing compared to a wider field of bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: The moderate competition level means taxpayers likely received a fair price, but potentially not the absolute lowest possible if more bidders had participated.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, receiving essential facility maintenance services. Services delivered include the upkeep and operational support of Building 3105. The geographic impact is localized to the facility where Building 3105 is located. Workforce implications include employment for construction and maintenance personnel employed by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited innovation due to fixed-price structure and long duration.
Reliance on a single contractor for an extended period could lead to complacency.
Exclusion of sources in the competition process warrants further investigation into justification.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Long contract duration (over 8 years) allows for stable facility management.
Contractor has a track record with the government, suggesting familiarity with requirements.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector, a significant segment of the federal procurement landscape. This sector encompasses a wide range of services from new construction to ongoing maintenance and repair of government facilities. Federal spending in this area is substantial, supporting military bases, administrative buildings, and research facilities across the nation and globally. This specific contract represents a portion of the broader spending on maintaining operational readiness and infrastructure for defense agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary focus for this specific contract award. There is no indication of a small business set-aside. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses are not explicitly detailed in this summary, but it is common for large construction and maintenance contracts to include provisions for small business subcontracting to meet federal goals.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program/facility managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services. Transparency is facilitated through federal procurement databases where contract awards are published. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support
Facility Maintenance and Repair
Construction Services
Real Property Maintenance

Risk Flags

Competition level lower than ideal.
Potential for contractor complacency over long duration.
Justification for source exclusion needs review.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $38.8 million to LEEBCOR SERVICES LLC. IGF::OT::IGF BLDG 3105 TBUP

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LEEBCOR SERVICES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $38.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-09-29. End: 2025-03-12.

What is the specific nature of the services provided under this contract for Building 3105?

The contract, awarded to LEEBCOR SERVICES LLC, is categorized under NAICS code 236220 (Commercial and Institutional Building Construction). While the specific details of 'building maintenance' are not fully elaborated in the provided data, this typically encompasses a broad range of services essential for the upkeep and operational readiness of a facility. These services often include routine maintenance, repairs, janitorial services, groundskeeping, HVAC system servicing, electrical and plumbing upkeep, and potentially minor renovations or upgrades. The firm fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope of work for which the contractor is compensated a set amount, implying a comprehensive service package rather than ad-hoc repairs.

How does the $38.8 million contract value compare to similar long-term facility maintenance contracts?

Comparing the $38.8 million contract value requires context on the duration and scope. This contract spans approximately 8.5 years (3086 days), making the average annual value around $4.56 million. This figure is within the expected range for large-scale, comprehensive facility maintenance contracts supporting significant government installations or buildings. Factors influencing the total value include the size and complexity of Building 3105, the criticality of its function, labor costs in the specific geographic region (Georgia), and the breadth of services required. Without specific details on the service level agreements or the exact square footage and systems maintained, a precise benchmark is difficult, but the annual spend is consistent with major facility support contracts.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract of this duration?

While firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally favored for cost control, a long duration (over 8 years) introduces specific risks. For the contractor, unforeseen increases in material costs, labor rates, or regulatory compliance expenses could erode profit margins, potentially leading to requests for modification or, in extreme cases, contractor default. For the government, the risk lies in potential contractor complacency or a decline in service quality over time if performance monitoring is lax. The FFP structure can also stifle innovation, as the contractor may be disincentivized from proposing more efficient methods if they reduce their own profit without a mechanism for sharing savings. Robust performance management and clear contract terms are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' designation imply for the procurement process?

This designation indicates a procurement strategy that aimed for broad competition but ultimately excluded certain potential offerors. 'Full and open competition' is the preferred method, ensuring the widest possible participation. However, 'after exclusion of sources' suggests that specific companies or types of companies were deliberately not considered or invited to bid, likely due to pre-existing contract vehicles, specific qualifications, or other documented reasons. While two bidders participated, the exclusion implies that the pool of potential competitors was narrower than it could have been. The justification for excluding sources is critical for understanding if the government maximized competitive pressure and achieved the best possible value.

What is the historical spending pattern for facility maintenance at this specific location or for similar buildings?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award. To assess historical spending patterns, one would need to examine prior contracts for Building 3105 or comparable facilities managed by the Department of the Army in Georgia. This would involve searching federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for previous awards related to this facility or similar types of buildings (e.g., barracks, administrative centers, training facilities). Analyzing past contract values, durations, awarded contractors, and competition levels would reveal trends in spending, identify potential cost increases over time, and highlight any shifts in procurement strategies (e.g., moving from sole-source to competitive bids). Without this historical data, it's difficult to determine if the current $38.8M award represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 430 MCLAWS CIRCLE, SUITE 201, WILLIAMSBURG, VA, 23185

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $38,827,595

Exercised Options: $38,827,595

Current Obligation: $38,827,595

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9127816D0033

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline