DYNCORP awarded $103.7M for Security Guards and Patrol Services by the Department of the Army

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $103,717,531 ($103.7M)

Contractor: Dyncorp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-02-13

End Date: 2010-05-26

Contract Duration: 2,659 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $103.7 million to DYNCORP for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for security services, indicating a need for physical protection and monitoring. 2. The contract duration of 2659 days suggests a long-term requirement for these services. 3. Awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION', implying a competitive bidding process. 4. The contract type 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' suggests performance incentives for the contractor. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 points to a specialized security services market. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, a major defense agency. 7. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests the primary contractor is not a small business.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics or comparable contract data. The cost-plus award fee structure allows for flexibility but can also lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. The total award amount of $103.7 million over approximately 7.3 years averages to about $14.2 million annually, which needs to be assessed against the scope and scale of the security services provided.

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. This suggests a robust bidding process where multiple companies likely vied for the contract. The level of competition is generally positive for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down costs and improve service quality.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who receive enhanced security. Services delivered include security guards and patrol services, crucial for maintaining order and safety. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around Army installations where these services are deployed. Workforce implications include the creation of jobs for security personnel employed by DYNCORP.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus award fee contracts can sometimes lead to higher costs if performance incentives are not carefully structured or if contractor costs escalate.
The long duration of the contract might reduce flexibility for the agency to adapt to changing security needs or to re-compete for potentially better pricing.
Without specific details on the scope of services, it's difficult to definitively assess if the $103.7 million represents optimal value for the security provided.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that likely yielded a fair price.
The use of a cost-plus award fee structure indicates an incentive for the contractor to perform well.
DYNCORP is an established government contractor with experience in providing similar services.

Sector Analysis

The security services industry is a significant sector within government contracting, encompassing a wide range of protective services. This contract falls under the security and investigation services sub-sector, characterized by a need for trained personnel and robust operational protocols. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale security contracts awarded by defense agencies for similar services.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not set aside for small businesses, and the prime contractor, DYNCORP, is a large entity. This means that small businesses are unlikely to be direct prime contractors on this award. However, there may be subcontracting opportunities for small businesses to provide specific services or support, depending on DYNCORP's subcontracting plan and the nature of the security services required.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Performance would be monitored against the contract's statement of work and award fee criteria. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific performance details might be sensitive. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Security Contracts
Army Security Force Assistance
Private Security Services for Government Facilities
Guard Services Contracts
Patrol Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns in CPAF contracts
Long contract duration may limit flexibility
Performance metrics clarity for award fee assessment

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $103.7 million to DYNCORP. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DYNCORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $103.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-02-13. End: 2010-05-26.

What is DYNCORP's track record with similar government contracts, particularly in security services?

DYNCORP has a substantial history of performing government contracts, including significant work in security, logistics, and aviation support for various agencies, notably the Department of Defense. They have been involved in large-scale security operations, often in complex environments. Analyzing their past performance on similar security contracts would involve reviewing past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and their ability to meet delivery timelines and quality standards. Their extensive experience suggests a capacity to manage large security contracts, but a detailed review of specific past performance metrics would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

How does the $103.7 million award compare to the market rate for similar security guard and patrol services?

Determining the precise market rate for security guard and patrol services is complex due to variations in service levels, geographic location, security clearance requirements, and the specific threats being mitigated. However, the average annual value of this contract is approximately $14.2 million. To benchmark this, one would typically compare it against other large-scale contracts awarded by federal agencies for similar services, considering the number of personnel, hours of coverage, and specialized skills required. Without detailed service requirements, a direct comparison is difficult, but the 'full and open competition' award suggests the pricing was deemed competitive at the time of award.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract for security services?

The primary risks with a CPAF contract for security services include potential for cost growth if the base cost projections are inaccurate or if unforeseen operational challenges arise. The 'award fee' component introduces subjectivity in performance evaluation, which can lead to disputes if not clearly defined and objectively measured. For taxpayers, the risk is that the contractor may prioritize achieving award fee targets over strict cost control, potentially leading to higher overall expenditures than a fixed-price contract. Effective oversight and clearly defined performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure value for money.

How effective are security guard and patrol services in deterring threats and ensuring safety at military installations?

Security guard and patrol services are a fundamental component of physical security strategies at military installations, designed to deter unauthorized access, monitor activities, and respond to immediate threats. Their effectiveness is generally high in maintaining a visible security presence, controlling access points, and providing rapid initial response. However, their effectiveness is contingent on factors such as the quality of training, the number of personnel deployed, the sophistication of the threats faced, and the integration with other security measures like surveillance technology and intelligence gathering. While they are a critical layer of defense, they are most effective as part of a comprehensive security framework.

What has been the historical spending trend for security guard and patrol services by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending trends for security guard and patrol services by the Department of the Army are generally substantial, reflecting the vast number of installations and personnel requiring protection. The Army, like other branches of the Department of Defense, relies heavily on contracted security services to supplement military police and internal security measures. Spending in this category can fluctuate based on geopolitical conditions, changes in threat assessments, and budgetary allocations. Analyzing historical data would reveal patterns of contract awards, average contract values, and the prevalence of different contract types used for these services over time.

What are the implications of awarding a large security contract to a single entity like DYNCORP for service continuity?

Awarding a large security contract to a single entity like DYNCORP for an extended period (2659 days) generally ensures service continuity and stability. This allows the contractor to invest in personnel, training, and equipment, leading to a more experienced and cohesive security force. It also simplifies management for the contracting agency, reducing the administrative burden of managing multiple smaller contracts. However, it can also create a dependency on that single contractor, potentially reducing leverage in future negotiations and limiting opportunities for innovation or competition from other providers unless managed proactively through performance incentives and clear exit strategies.

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

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Computer Sciences Corporation (UEI: 009581091)

Address: 11710 PLAZA AMERICA DRIVE, RESTON, VA, 11

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline