DoD's $12.38M Facilities Operations Contract Awarded to Defense Contract Services, Inc. for 10 Years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,375,811 ($12.4M)

Contractor: Defense Contract Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-09-22

End Date: 2012-09-29

Contract Duration: 3,660 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: 200212!003151!2100!KF23 !DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING !DAKF2302C0016 !A!N! !N! !20020922!20030331!003794588!003794588!003794588!N!DEFENSE CONTRACT SERVICES, INC!12731 HWY 183N !AUSTIN !TX!78759!28468!047!21!FORT CAMPBELL !CHRISTIAN !KENTUCKY !+000000806853!N!N!000000000000!S216!FACILITIES OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !488119!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!U!J!2!005!B! !Z!N!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !A! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: FORT CAMPBELL, CHRISTIAN County, KENTUCKY, 42223, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Kentucky Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $12.4 million to DEFENSE CONTRACT SERVICES, INC. for work described as: 200212!003151!2100!KF23 !DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING !DAKF2302C0016 !A!N! !N! !20020922!20030331!003794588!003794588!003794588!N!DEFENSE CONTRACT SERVICES, INC!12731 HWY 183N !AUSTIN !TX!78759!28468!047!21!FORT CAMPBELL !CHRIS… Key points: 1. Contract value of $12.38M over a decade suggests significant operational scope. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, indicating a potentially competitive bidding process. 3. Long contract duration of 10 years may present risks related to evolving needs and contractor performance. 4. The contract is for facilities operations support services, a critical but often overlooked area of defense spending. 5. Geographic focus on Fort Campbell, Kentucky, highlights localized impact and specific installation support. 6. Firm Fixed Price contract type aims to control costs but may limit flexibility for unforeseen changes.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $12.38M over 10 years averages approximately $1.24M annually. Benchmarking this against similar facilities operations support contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the long duration could indicate a stable, albeit potentially high, price for consistent service delivery. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the contractor bears cost overruns, which can be a positive for the government if the scope is well-defined.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' suggesting that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 5 bids indicates a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While not a large number of bidders, it suggests that the market was aware of and interested in the opportunity, which typically aids in price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple companies to bid, potentially driving down prices and ensuring the government receives competitive rates for its services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Defense, specifically the Army installation at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, which receives essential facilities operations support. Services delivered include general facilities operations, crucial for maintaining the functionality and readiness of military infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, supporting military personnel and operations at that specific base. Workforce implications include direct employment by Defense Contract Services, Inc. and potentially indirect support roles within the local Kentucky economy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (10 years) increases the risk of performance degradation or misalignment with evolving needs.
Firm Fixed Price contracts can be inflexible if the scope of work changes significantly over the contract period.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical facilities operations could pose a risk if the contractor faces financial or operational difficulties.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that likely yielded a fair price.
The contractor, Defense Contract Services, Inc., has secured a significant, long-term contract, indicating a level of established capability.
The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government over the contract's life, assuming the scope remains stable.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader defense services sector, which encompasses a wide range of support functions for military operations. Facilities operations and maintenance are a critical sub-segment, ensuring the readiness and habitability of military installations. Spending in this area is substantial across the federal government, with significant portions allocated by the Department of Defense to maintain its vast real estate portfolio. Comparable benchmarks would typically involve analyzing per-square-foot maintenance costs or contract values for similar installation support services across different military branches or bases.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large, long-term contract for comprehensive facilities operations, it is unlikely that significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would be mandated or readily available, unless specifically included in the contract terms. This suggests the primary benefit would flow to the prime contractor, Defense Contract Services, Inc., rather than distributing work within the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices at Fort Campbell. The Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) may conduct audits to ensure cost allowability and compliance. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics and detailed oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support Services
Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Department of Defense Construction and Facilities Management
Army Installation Support Contracts
Logistics and Support Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration
Potential for scope creep or obsolescence
Contractor performance over extended period
Reliance on single provider for critical services

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $12.4 million to DEFENSE CONTRACT SERVICES, INC.. 200212!003151!2100!KF23 !DIRECTORATE OF CONTRACTING !DAKF2302C0016 !A!N! !N! !20020922!20030331!003794588!003794588!003794588!N!DEFENSE CONTRACT SERVICES, INC!12731 HWY 183N !AUSTIN !TX!78759!28468!047!21!FORT CAMPBELL !CHRISTIAN !KENTUCKY !+000000806853!N!N!000000000000!S216!FACILITIES OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !488119!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DEFENSE CONTRACT SERVICES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-09-22. End: 2012-09-29.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities operations support at Fort Campbell?

Analyzing historical spending for facilities operations support at Fort Campbell requires access to detailed budget and contract data specific to that installation over multiple fiscal years. Without this granular data, it's difficult to establish a precise pattern. However, given the nature of military installations, consistent and significant investment in facilities operations is expected. This $12.38M contract over 10 years suggests an average annual spend of approximately $1.24M for these services at Fort Campbell. To understand the pattern, one would need to compare this average to previous contract awards for similar services at the base, looking for trends in contract values, durations, and types of services procured. Significant fluctuations could indicate changes in operational tempo, infrastructure investment cycles, or shifts in contracting strategies.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for facilities operations?

Determining a precise per-unit cost for this contract is challenging without knowing the specific units of service being procured (e.g., per square foot, per building, per service type). The total contract value is $12.38M over 10 years. If we assume a simplified benchmark based on average facilities management costs per square foot for large government facilities, industry averages can range widely, from $2 to $10+ per square foot annually, depending on the complexity and scope of services. For a large installation like Fort Campbell, the total square footage is substantial. If the contract covers a vast area, the $1.24M annual average might appear reasonable or even low. However, a true comparison would require detailed service level agreements and cost breakdowns, which are not provided in the summary data. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the government has negotiated a set price, but its competitiveness relies heavily on the initial bidding process and the government's understanding of market rates.

What is the track record of Defense Contract Services, Inc. in performing similar large-scale facilities operations contracts?

Defense Contract Services, Inc. (DCS) has been awarded this significant 10-year contract, suggesting they have a demonstrated capability to handle large-scale facilities operations. To assess their track record thoroughly, one would need to examine their past performance on similar contracts, including their history with the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Key indicators include contract completion success, client satisfaction ratings (e.g., CPARS scores), any history of contract disputes or terminations, and their financial stability. A review of federal procurement databases and contract award histories would reveal the size, duration, and scope of previous contracts held by DCS. Positive performance on prior, comparable contracts would increase confidence in their ability to execute this current award effectively.

What are the potential risks associated with a 10-year contract for facilities operations?

A 10-year contract duration for facilities operations presents several potential risks. Firstly, the needs of the installation can evolve significantly over a decade due to changes in military strategy, technology, or operational requirements. A fixed scope may become outdated or insufficient. Secondly, contractor performance can degrade over long periods if oversight is not rigorous or if the contractor becomes complacent. Thirdly, market conditions and technology related to facilities management may change, potentially making the contracted services or pricing less efficient compared to newer solutions. Finally, long-term reliance on a single provider can reduce flexibility and bargaining power if circumstances necessitate changes or a different approach. Mitigating these risks often involves incorporating mechanisms for scope adjustments, regular performance reviews, and potentially price re-determination clauses.

How does the competition level (5 bidders) impact the value for money received by the government?

A competition level of 5 bidders for this facilities operations contract suggests a moderately competitive environment. While more bidders generally lead to greater price pressure and potentially better value, 5 offers indicate that the requirement was known and attractive enough to draw multiple interested parties. This level of competition is often sufficient to prevent monopolistic pricing and encourage bidders to submit competitive proposals to secure the award. The value for money is influenced not only by the number of bidders but also by the quality of the proposals received and the government's ability to evaluate them effectively. If the 5 bids were closely contested and represented a range of capabilities and prices, the government likely achieved reasonable value. However, a significantly higher number of bidders (e.g., 10+) might have yielded even more aggressive pricing.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Support Activities for Air Transportation › Other Airport Operations

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 204 S BAGDAD ST, LEANDER, TX, 78641

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline