DoD's $24.3M Facilities Management Contract Awarded to Advanced Facility Management Services, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,286,197 ($24.3M)

Contractor: Advanced Facility Management Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2001-09-27

End Date: 2006-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,646 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: FREDERICK, FREDERICK County, MARYLAND, 21702

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.3 million to ADVANCED FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating predictable costs for the government. 2. The contract was not competed, raising questions about potential price efficiencies and market engagement. 3. A single award suggests limited market exploration or specific contractor qualifications were deemed essential. 4. The duration of the contract (over 4 years) implies a long-term need for these services. 5. The contract falls under Facilities Support Services, a critical operational category for the Army. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this was not specifically targeted for smaller enterprises.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without comparable data for similar facilities management services within the Department of Defense. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the lack of competition makes it difficult to assess if the pricing represents optimal value for money. Without a competitive bidding process, it's harder to determine if the awarded price is aligned with market rates or if efficiencies could have been achieved through broader solicitation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when a specific contractor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or when urgency dictates a direct award. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs than might be achieved in an open market.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not have received the most cost-effective solution due to the absence of competitive pressure to drive down prices. The government's ability to secure the best possible value is diminished when a contract is not openly competed.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army is the primary beneficiary, receiving essential facilities support services. Services likely include maintenance, repair, janitorial, and operational support for military facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Maryland (ST: MD, SN: MARYLAND), where the contractor is based and services are likely performed. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for individuals in facilities management and support roles, potentially within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition limits opportunities for new entrants and potentially higher costs.
Sole-source award raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible value.
Contract duration without re-competition may reduce incentives for continuous improvement by the incumbent.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the duration of the award.
Award to a single entity suggests specialized capabilities or a long-standing relationship may be leveraged.
Focus on facilities support ensures critical infrastructure remains operational for the Department of the Army.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing the management and maintenance of physical infrastructure. This sector is crucial for government operations, ensuring that facilities are functional, safe, and well-maintained. The market for these services is typically characterized by a mix of large, diversified service providers and smaller, specialized firms. Government spending in this area is substantial, reflecting the vast real estate holdings and operational needs of federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The contract details indicate that this was not a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned. This suggests that the primary award was made without a specific focus on engaging the small business sector directly. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem may be limited unless the prime contractor voluntarily includes small businesses in its subcontracting chain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Army administrative and technical points of contact. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon cost. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award, as the justification and evaluation process may not be publicly detailed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Government Facilities Maintenance
Real Property Management
Contracted Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for higher costs
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.3 million to ADVANCED FACILITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ADVANCED FACILITY MANAGEMENT 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 $24.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2001-09-27. End: 2006-03-31.

What specific facilities management services were included in this contract?

While the specific line items are not detailed in the provided data, 'Facilities Support Services' typically encompasses a wide range of activities. These often include routine maintenance (HVAC, plumbing, electrical), janitorial services, groundskeeping, pest control, minor repairs and renovations, waste management, and potentially security services related to facility access and control. The contract likely outlined detailed performance standards and service level agreements (SLAs) for each of these functions to ensure the operational readiness and upkeep of the Army facilities in Maryland.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

Sole-source awards are generally justified when only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the government's needs. Common reasons include the existence of unique capabilities, proprietary technology, critical urgency where competition is not feasible, or if the requirement is a follow-on to a previous contract where the original contractor developed specialized knowledge or infrastructure. Without further documentation, the specific rationale for this sole-source award to Advanced Facility Management Services, Inc. remains unclear but would have been formally documented at the time of award.

How does the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type benefit the government in this context?

A firm-fixed-price contract is advantageous for the government as it shifts the majority of the risk to the contractor. The price is set and not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience. This provides budget certainty and predictability, allowing the Department of the Army to accurately forecast expenditures for facilities management. While it may not always result in the lowest possible price compared to other contract types if costs are lower than anticipated, it protects the government from cost overruns and simplifies financial administration.

What is the typical market size and competitive landscape for facilities support services?

The market for facilities support services is substantial and highly competitive, encompassing a wide array of companies ranging from large, multinational corporations to small, specialized local businesses. Government contracts within this sector are significant due to the extensive real estate portfolios managed by federal agencies. Competition is generally robust, especially for broadly defined services, which makes sole-source awards for such requirements less common and often subject to stringent justification requirements. The landscape includes companies specializing in integrated facility management, maintenance, janitorial, security, and energy management.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source contract of this duration?

A significant risk with a long-term, sole-source contract is the potential for complacency and reduced innovation from the contractor, as there is no immediate competitive pressure to improve services or reduce costs. Furthermore, the government may be paying a premium compared to what could be achieved through a competitive process. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly to transition to a different provider in the future if performance issues arise or market conditions change. Ensuring robust oversight and performance management is crucial to mitigate these risks.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 10025 JASPER DRIVE, GREENCASTLE, PA, 13

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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline