DoD's $18.25M Janitorial Services Contract with OLYMPUS BUILDING SERVICES INC Raises Concerns Over Long Duration and Limited Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,251,775 ($18.3M)

Contractor: Olympus Building Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 1999-11-05

End Date: 2009-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,617 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 27

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: WARNER ROBINS, HOUSTON County, GEORGIA, 31098

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $18.3 million to OLYMPUS BUILDING SERVICES INC for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract spans nearly a decade, raising questions about sustained value and potential for price escalation. 2. While labeled 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources,' the specific exclusion details are not provided, warranting further scrutiny. 3. The significant duration and fixed-price nature could lead to overpayment if service needs or market rates change substantially. 4. This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, where long-term contracts are common but require diligent oversight.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $18.25M over approximately 10 years suggests an average annual spend of $1.8M. Benchmarking against similar janitorial service contracts of comparable scope and duration is difficult without more specific service details, but the extended period raises questions about whether this represents optimal value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition after Exclusion of Sources.' This designation implies that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded, potentially limiting the competitive pool and impacting price discovery. The rationale for excluding sources needs further examination.

Taxpayer Impact: The long duration and potentially limited competition could result in taxpayers paying more than necessary for janitorial services over the contract's life.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for janitorial services due to the contract's extended duration and potentially restricted competition. The lack of transparency regarding the exclusion of sources raises accountability concerns. The long-term commitment may not reflect current or future service needs or market efficiencies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Contract duration (nearly 10 years)
Ambiguous competition type ('after exclusion of sources')
Lack of clear justification for source exclusion
Potential for price creep over a decade

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a single vendor, potentially indicating a streamlined process.
Fixed-price contract provides some cost certainty upfront.

Sector Analysis

This contract for janitorial services falls under Facilities Support Services. Spending in this sector is generally stable, but long-term contracts require careful monitoring to ensure continued cost-effectiveness and alignment with evolving service requirements.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business participation was not a factor ('sb': false). This suggests that opportunities for small businesses in providing these janitorial services were not pursued or were not met under this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

The nearly decade-long duration necessitates robust oversight to ensure service quality and cost control. The 'exclusion of sources' clause requires specific attention from oversight bodies to confirm its justification and impact on competition.

Related Government Programs

Janitorial Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Department of the Air Force Programs

Risk Flags

Extended contract duration (nearly 10 years)
Ambiguous competition clause ('after exclusion of sources')
Lack of transparency regarding source exclusion
Potential for price escalation over time
No stated small business participation

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $18.3 million to OLYMPUS BUILDING SERVICES INC. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is OLYMPUS BUILDING SERVICES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1999-11-05. End: 2009-09-30.

What was the specific justification for excluding certain sources from the competition, and how did this exclusion impact the final price and service quality?

The justification for excluding sources is critical for understanding the competitive landscape. If legitimate reasons existed, such as specialized capabilities or past performance, the exclusion might be warranted. However, without this information, it's impossible to assess if the exclusion unduly limited competition, potentially leading to a higher price than a fully open competition might have yielded. This lack of transparency hinders a thorough value assessment.

Given the contract's 10-year span, what mechanisms were in place to adjust pricing for inflation, changes in service scope, or market rate fluctuations?

A fixed-price contract over a decade typically includes provisions for economic price adjustments (EPAs) or requires periodic re-negotiation to account for inflation and market shifts. Without details on these mechanisms, there's a risk that the government is locked into outdated pricing, potentially overpaying if market rates have decreased or underpaying if costs have significantly increased, impacting service quality. Clarity on these adjustment clauses is vital for assessing long-term value.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar janitorial services provided to large federal facilities?

Benchmarking is essential for evaluating the $1.8M average annual spend. If industry benchmarks for comparable facilities suggest significantly lower costs, it indicates potential overpayment. Conversely, if the cost aligns with or is below benchmarks, it suggests reasonable value. The lack of specific service details and location makes precise benchmarking challenging, but a general comparison against facilities of similar size and complexity is necessary to gauge cost-effectiveness.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Services to Buildings and Dwellings › Janitorial 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: 27

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 244 S MAIN ST, NEW HOPE, PA, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline