Glencor Services Inc. awarded $14.7M for facilities management, with 3 bids under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,692,879 ($14.7M)

Contractor: Glencor Services Inc

Awarding Agency: National Science Foundation

Start Date: 2003-12-01

End Date: 2012-08-31

Contract Duration: 3,196 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22230

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

National Science Foundation obligated $14.7 million to GLENCOR SERVICES INC for work described as: FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract value of $14.7M over nearly 9 years suggests a moderate annual spend for facilities support. 2. Full and open competition after exclusion of sources indicates a deliberate effort to solicit broad participation. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. The award was made by the National Science Foundation, a key research funding agency. 5. The contractor, Glencor Services Inc., has a track record with this specific contract. 6. The duration of the contract (3196 days) is substantial, implying a long-term need for these services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this $14.7M contract over nearly 9 years requires more granular data on the specific services provided. However, the average annual value of approximately $1.6M for facilities support services appears within a reasonable range for a federal agency of the National Science Foundation's size. Without specific performance metrics or detailed service breakdowns, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. Comparing it to similar facilities management contracts at other agencies would provide better context for pricing and efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' suggesting that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded for defined reasons. With three bidders, the competition level was moderate. This level of competition generally allows for price discovery and encourages competitive pricing, though a higher number of bidders could potentially drive prices lower.

Taxpayer Impact: The moderate competition suggests taxpayers likely received a fair price, but a more robust bidding process might have yielded additional savings.

Public Impact

Federal employees and visitors at National Science Foundation facilities benefit from maintained and operational spaces. Essential services such as building operations, maintenance, and potentially custodial services are delivered. The primary geographic impact is likely concentrated around NSF facilities, predominantly in Virginia. The contract supports jobs within the facilities management sector, contributing to the local and national workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if service definitions are not tightly managed over the long contract duration.
Reliance on a single contractor for nearly a decade could lead to complacency or reduced innovation.
The 'after exclusion of sources' clause warrants scrutiny to ensure fair competition was not unduly limited.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price structure incentivizes contractor efficiency and cost control.
The long duration provides stability and predictability for service delivery.
The moderate competition suggests a baseline level of market interest and viable alternatives existed.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a significant segment of the broader facilities management industry. This contract represents a portion of the federal government's spending on maintaining its infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal facilities management contracts, particularly those awarded to support research institutions or government agencies of similar scale. The market is characterized by a mix of large, established players and smaller, specialized service providers.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications related to small business set-asides stemming from this specific award. The primary contractor, Glencor Services Inc., is responsible for managing the service delivery, and any subcontracting decisions would be at their discretion, not mandated by a small business set-aside provision.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program managers within the National Science Foundation. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring Glencor Services Inc. to deliver specified services. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Facilities Management Contracts
Department of Defense Base Operations Support (BOS)
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Facilities Maintenance
Energy Department Facility Operations

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources' clause.
Risk of contractor complacency over a long contract duration.
Need for clear performance metrics to ensure value for money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

National Science Foundation awarded $14.7 million to GLENCOR SERVICES INC. FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GLENCOR SERVICES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: National Science Foundation (National Science Foundation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-12-01. End: 2012-08-31.

What is the track record of Glencor Services Inc. with the National Science Foundation prior to this award?

The provided data indicates Glencor Services Inc. was awarded this specific facilities management contract by the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a start date of December 1, 2003, and an end date of August 31, 2012. This suggests a direct, long-term relationship between the contractor and the agency for these services. Without access to detailed performance reviews or historical contract data beyond this award, it's difficult to assess their broader track record with the NSF. However, the award of a nearly 9-year contract implies a level of satisfaction or capability demonstrated that met NSF's requirements at the time of selection. Further investigation into past performance evaluations, if publicly available, would be necessary for a comprehensive understanding of their history with the agency.

How does the total contract value compare to annual spending on similar facilities management services at other federal agencies?

The total contract value of $14.7 million over approximately 3196 days (roughly 8.75 years) equates to an average annual expenditure of about $1.68 million. This figure needs to be contextualized against the size and scope of facilities managed. For instance, large agencies like the Department of Defense or the General Services Administration manage vast portfolios of buildings, often with annual facilities management budgets in the hundreds of millions or even billions. For an agency like the National Science Foundation, which primarily focuses on research funding, this annual spend appears moderate. Comparing it to facilities management contracts for similarly sized research institutions or agencies with comparable building footprints would provide a more accurate benchmark. Contracts for specialized scientific facilities might also command higher costs.

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

The primary risk associated with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract of this duration (nearly 9 years) is the potential for the contractor to become complacent or less innovative over time, knowing their profit margin is fixed regardless of efficiency gains beyond initial projections. For the government, the risk lies in potential cost underruns if the contractor significantly overestimates costs, leading to a less-than-optimal value, or if unforeseen circumstances arise that drastically increase the contractor's costs, potentially leading to disputes or performance issues if not managed carefully. The contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which could impact their profitability or even lead to financial distress if not managed effectively. Ensuring robust performance standards and clear deliverables is crucial to mitigate these risks.

What does the 'after exclusion of sources' clause imply for the competition process?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause indicates that the solicitation was intended to be open to all responsible sources, but specific sources were intentionally excluded from consideration. This exclusion must be justified based on specific criteria outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as national security, unique capabilities, or prior performance issues with excluded entities. While the intent is still broad competition, the exclusion narrows the field. In this case, with three bidders, the exclusion did not appear to stifle competition to the point of having only one or two bidders, but it did limit the total pool of potential offerors. The justification for exclusion would be critical to understanding if it served a legitimate government purpose or potentially restricted competition unnecessarily.

How does the number of bidders (3) impact the likely value received by the taxpayer?

Having three bidders generally suggests a reasonable level of competition, which is beneficial for taxpayers. This number typically allows for meaningful price discovery and encourages bidders to offer competitive pricing to secure the contract. If there had been only one or two bidders, it might indicate barriers to entry or a lack of market interest, potentially leading to higher prices. Conversely, a significantly larger number of bidders (e.g., 5+) could potentially drive prices even lower, but also increase the administrative burden of evaluation. Therefore, three bidders represent a middle ground, likely resulting in a fair market price, though perhaps not the absolute lowest possible price achievable under more intense competition.

What are the potential implications of a long-term facilities management contract on service quality and innovation?

A long-term contract, such as this nearly 9-year agreement, offers stability and predictability for both the government agency and the contractor. This can lead to consistent service quality as the contractor becomes deeply familiar with the agency's needs and facilities. However, it also carries the risk of stagnation. Without the pressure of frequent re-competition, the contractor might have less incentive to innovate or proactively seek efficiencies beyond what is contractually required. To mitigate this, contract performance metrics should be robust, and mechanisms for incorporating new technologies or improved methods should be included. Regular performance reviews and open communication channels are essential to ensure quality is maintained and innovation is encouraged throughout the contract's life.

Industry Classification

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

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7469 OLD ALEXANDRIA FERRY RD, CLINTON, MD, 04

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,692,879

Exercised Options: $14,692,879

Current Obligation: $14,692,879

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Timeline