DOE's $618M Facilities Support Contract with Martin Marietta Spec Component awarded in 1992, running through 2050
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $618,349,746 ($618.3M)
Contractor: Martin Marietta Spec Component
Awarding Agency: Department of Energy
Start Date: 1992-04-15
End Date: 2050-09-30
Contract Duration: 21,352 days
Daily Burn Rate: $29.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE
Sector: Other
Place of Performance
Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20585
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Energy obligated $618.3 million to MARTIN MARIETTA SPEC COMPONENT for work described as: Key points: 1. Long-term contract duration suggests a need for stable, ongoing facilities support. 2. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure may incentivize cost control but requires careful oversight. 3. Full and open competition indicates a potentially competitive bidding process. 4. The contract's significant value and extended period present potential risks if performance falters. 5. Facilities support services are critical for agency operations and infrastructure maintenance. 6. The contract's longevity raises questions about adaptability to evolving needs and technologies.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract's value of over $618 million spread across a 58-year period (1992-2050) makes direct per-year comparisons difficult without more granular data. The CPFF pricing structure, while common for complex services, can lead to higher costs if not managed effectively. Benchmarking value would require detailed analysis of the specific services provided and comparison to similar facilities support contracts, which are not readily available in the provided data.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders were likely considered. The presence of two bids indicates a degree of competition, which is generally positive for price discovery. However, the long duration and the nature of facilities support services might limit the number of truly capable bidders.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through a competitive process, potentially leading to lower overall costs compared to sole-source or limited competition awards.
Public Impact
The Department of Energy benefits from consistent and reliable facilities support services, ensuring operational continuity. The contract supports the maintenance and management of critical government infrastructure. The geographic impact is primarily within the District of Columbia, where the services are rendered. The contract likely supports a workforce involved in facilities management, maintenance, and related services.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Extended contract duration (nearly 6 decades) may lead to vendor lock-in and reduced flexibility.
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires robust oversight to prevent cost overruns.
- Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it hard to assess effectiveness.
- Potential for outdated service delivery methods due to the long contract term.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
- Long-term award provides stability and predictability for essential services.
- Contractor has a long-standing relationship with the agency, implying some level of trust and established processes.
Sector Analysis
Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a broad category encompassing a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. This sector includes services like building operation and maintenance, security systems services, and grounds maintenance. The federal government is a significant consumer of these services, awarding billions annually to ensure its vast real estate portfolio is functional and secure. This specific contract represents a substantial portion of spending within this category for the Department of Energy.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by this award. The focus appears to be on securing comprehensive facilities support services through a large-scale contract.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically involve the Department of Energy's contracting officers and program managers responsible for facilities. The CPFF structure necessitates rigorous financial oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and allocable. Transparency is generally maintained through contract reporting requirements, though specific details on public access to performance data are not provided. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to investigations of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Government Facilities Management
- Department of Energy Operations
- Long-Term Service Contracts
- Infrastructure Maintenance Contracts
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may reduce flexibility and increase risk of vendor lock-in.
- Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure requires diligent oversight to manage costs effectively.
- Lack of specific performance metrics in summary data hinders assessment of value.
- Potential for outdated service models due to the extended contract timeline.
Tags
department-of-energy, facilities-support-services, definitive-contract, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, district-of-columbia, long-term-contract, martin- Marietta-spec-component, 1992-award, 2050-end-date
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Energy awarded $618.3 million to MARTIN MARIETTA SPEC COMPONENT. See the official description on USAspending.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is MARTIN MARIETTA SPEC COMPONENT.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $618.3 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1992-04-15. End: 2050-09-30.
What is the historical spending trend for this specific contract since its inception?
The provided data indicates a total award value of $618,349,745.51 for this contract, awarded in 1992 with an end date of 2050. However, it does not detail the annual spending or disbursement history. To understand the spending trend, one would need access to historical contract financial reports. Given the contract's duration and CPFF structure, spending would likely fluctuate based on agency needs, operational requirements, and any modifications or task orders issued over the decades. Without specific annual expenditure data, it's impossible to chart a trend, but the total value suggests significant and consistent investment in facilities support over its lifespan.
How does the per-year cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities support services?
Calculating a precise per-year cost requires dividing the total award value ($618.35 million) by the contract duration (approximately 58 years from 1992 to 2050), yielding roughly $10.66 million per year. However, this is a simplified average and does not account for inflation, varying service levels, or potential changes in scope over time. Benchmarking this against industry standards for facilities support services is challenging without knowing the specific services rendered (e.g., maintenance, security, janitorial, groundskeeping) and the square footage or complexity of the facilities managed. Generally, large-scale, long-term government contracts can sometimes be less cost-efficient than shorter-term, more agile private sector contracts due to administrative overhead and procurement regulations. A detailed comparison would necessitate analyzing the contract's statement of work and comparing it to market rates for comparable services in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance under this agreement?
The provided summary data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. Typically, for facilities support services, KPIs might include response times for maintenance requests, uptime of critical systems (e.g., HVAC, power), cleanliness standards, security incident rates, energy efficiency metrics, and customer satisfaction surveys. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure implies that performance is monitored to ensure the fixed fee is earned and that costs remain within acceptable parameters. Robust oversight would involve regular performance reviews against defined metrics, with potential for award fees or penalties depending on the contract's specific terms and conditions.
What is the potential risk associated with the extended contract duration (1992-2050)?
The extended duration of this contract, spanning nearly six decades, presents several potential risks. Firstly, it increases the risk of vendor lock-in, making it difficult and potentially costly for the government to switch providers or adopt new technologies if the incumbent contractor is unable or unwilling to adapt. Secondly, the long timeframe may not adequately account for evolving facility needs, technological advancements in building management, or changes in regulatory requirements, potentially leading to suboptimal service delivery or increased costs for modifications. Thirdly, maintaining consistent oversight and ensuring the contractor remains motivated and efficient over such a long period can be challenging. Finally, the sheer length of time increases the probability of unforeseen issues arising, such as contractor performance degradation or financial instability.
How has the contractor, Martin Marietta Spec Component, historically performed on similar government contracts?
The provided data does not include specific performance history or past performance evaluations for Martin Marietta Spec Component on this or other contracts. Assessing the contractor's track record would require accessing databases like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or similar government repositories that track contractor performance on federal awards. Given the contract's long duration and the nature of facilities support, a history of consistent performance, responsiveness, and adherence to contract terms would be crucial. Any significant past performance issues, such as cost overruns, missed deadlines, or quality deficiencies on previous contracts, could indicate a higher risk for this ongoing agreement.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Offers Received: 2
Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)
Contractor Details
Address: 7381 114TH AVE STE 403A, LARGO, FL, 34643
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $80,613,305
Exercised Options: $80,613,305
Current Obligation: $618,349,746
Actual Outlays: $15,405,846
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 1992-04-15
Current End Date: 2050-09-30
Potential End Date: 2050-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-02-27
Other Department of Energy Contracts
- Federal Contract — $48.1B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- ,Ct::igf Contract Award De-Na0003525 to the National Technology&engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (ntess) for the Management and Operation of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) — $41.7B (National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC)
- Management and Operation of the OAK Ridge National Laboratory — $40.8B (Ut-Battelle LLC)
- TAS::89 0240::TAS This Performance-Based Management Contract (pbmc) IS for the Management and Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (llnl). the Contractor Shall, in Accordance With the Provisions of This Contract, Accomplish the Missions and Programs Assigned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Manage and Operate the Laboratory. the Laboratory IS ONE of Does Office of Defense Program Multi-Program Laboratories. the Laboratory IS a Federally Funded Research and Development Institution (established in Accordance With the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 35 and Operated Under This Management and Operating (M&O) Contract, AS Defined in FAR 17.6 and Dear 917.6 — $40.8B (Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC)
- M&O of Lanl BR of U of CA — $35.3B (Regents of the University of California, the)