DoD's $15.4M landscaping contract awarded to Embassy Lawn and Landscaping, Inc. for 2498 days

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,419,207 ($15.4M)

Contractor: Embassy Lawn and Landscaping, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-03-30

End Date: 2012-01-31

Contract Duration: 2,498 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80914

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.4 million to EMBASSY LAWN AND LANDSCAPING, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $15.4 million over approximately 7 years suggests a significant investment in grounds maintenance. 2. The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating a specific justification for limiting the initial pool. 3. A high number of bidders (6) in the final competition phase suggests robust market interest and potential for competitive pricing. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially leading to more predictable government expenses. 5. Awarded by the Department of the Air Force, this contract supports base operations and quality of life for personnel. 6. The duration of nearly 7 years (2498 days) allows for long-term planning and consistent service delivery.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this landscaping contract is challenging without specific service details and comparable contract data. However, a $15.4 million expenditure over nearly seven years for landscaping services across potentially multiple Air Force installations indicates a substantial commitment. The firm-fixed-price structure implies that the government has negotiated a set price, which can be advantageous if the contractor manages costs effectively. Without detailed performance metrics or comparisons to similar-sized contracts for comparable services, a definitive value-for-money assessment is difficult, but the duration and total value suggest a significant operational requirement.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was initially awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while a broad competition was intended, certain sources were excluded for specific reasons. However, the data also indicates 6 bidders participated, suggesting a competitive process at some stage. The final award was made after this exclusion, and the presence of multiple bidders indicates that the market was responsive. The level of competition, particularly the number of bidders, is a positive sign for price discovery, though the initial exclusion warrants further scrutiny.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources in the initial phase could potentially limit the most competitive offers. However, the subsequent competition with 6 bidders suggests that taxpayers likely benefited from a reasonably competitive environment, leading to a negotiated price that reflects market conditions.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are Department of the Air Force personnel and their families, who experience improved living and working environments through well-maintained grounds. Services delivered include essential landscaping and grounds maintenance, contributing to the aesthetic appeal and operational readiness of Air Force bases. The geographic impact is concentrated at the Air Force installations where Embassy Lawn and Landscaping, Inc. provides services, likely within Colorado given the 'SN' field. Workforce implications include direct employment opportunities for landscaping professionals and support staff by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation raises questions about the initial justification for limiting the competitive pool and whether the most cost-effective solutions were explored from the outset.
Lack of detailed service scope makes it difficult to assess if the $15.4 million price tag represents optimal value for the specific landscaping tasks performed.
The long contract duration could lead to contractor complacency or reduced incentive for innovation if not managed with rigorous performance oversight.

Positive Signals

The participation of 6 bidders in the competition phase indicates a healthy level of market interest and suggests that the final price was likely influenced by competitive pressures.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, protecting against unexpected cost overruns by the contractor.
The contract's long duration allows for consistent service delivery and relationship building, potentially leading to more efficient operations over time.

Sector Analysis

The landscaping and grounds maintenance sector is a vital support service for government facilities, ensuring operational readiness and quality of life. This contract falls within the broader facilities management and maintenance industry. While specific market size data for federal landscaping contracts is not readily available, the consistent need for such services across military bases and government installations suggests a substantial and ongoing market. This contract represents a significant portion of spending for groundskeeping at the specific Air Force installations it serves.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses ('ss': false, 'sb': false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. The primary contractor, Embassy Lawn and Landscaping, Inc., is likely a medium to large enterprise given the contract value and duration. The impact on the broader small business ecosystem would be indirect, primarily through potential competition for future contracts or by observing the performance of larger firms in the market.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Air Force. Performance standards and delivery requirements would be outlined in the contract's statement of work. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, where the contractor is responsible for delivering services within the agreed-upon budget. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, although detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support Contracts
Facilities Maintenance Services
Groundskeeping and Horticultural Services
Department of Defense Construction and Architect-Engineer Services

Risk Flags

Competition Limitation Justification
Performance Monitoring Rigor
Value for Money Assessment Difficulty

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.4 million to EMBASSY LAWN AND LANDSCAPING, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EMBASSY LAWN AND LANDSCAPING, 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 $15.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-03-30. End: 2012-01-31.

What specific landscaping services were included in this $15.4 million contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific landscaping services included in the $15.4 million contract. Typically, such contracts encompass a range of activities including mowing, trimming, fertilization, pest control, irrigation system maintenance, tree and shrub care, seasonal planting, snow removal (if applicable), and general grounds upkeep. The exact scope would be defined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW). Without the SOW, it's impossible to ascertain the precise services rendered, which is crucial for a granular value assessment and comparison to industry benchmarks.

How does the $15.4 million contract value compare to similar landscaping contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

Comparing this $15.4 million contract value requires access to a broader dataset of similar Department of Defense (DoD) landscaping contracts, ideally with comparable scopes of work and durations. However, as a general benchmark, a contract of this magnitude over nearly seven years suggests a significant requirement, potentially covering multiple large installations or extensive grounds. Smaller base landscaping contracts might range from tens of thousands to a few million dollars annually. A $15.4 million total value indicates a substantial, long-term commitment that is likely above average for routine grounds maintenance at a single, smaller facility, but could be typical for larger bases or regional support.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance under this contract?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a landscaping services contract like this would typically focus on service delivery quality, timeliness, and adherence to environmental standards. Common KPIs might include: adherence to mowing schedules, quality of horticultural care (e.g., plant health, weed control), responsiveness to service requests, proper functioning of irrigation systems, and compliance with safety regulations. The contract's SOW would explicitly define these KPIs and the metrics used to measure them, along with any associated award fees or penalties. Without the SOW, specific KPIs cannot be identified.

What is the historical spending pattern for landscaping services by the Department of the Air Force?

Historical spending patterns for landscaping services by the Department of the Air Force (and the DoD broadly) are substantial, reflecting the need to maintain extensive grounds at numerous installations worldwide. While specific aggregate data is not provided here, the Air Force consistently awards numerous contracts for grounds maintenance, facilities management, and related services. Spending can fluctuate based on budget allocations, infrastructure projects, and base consolidation or closure initiatives. This $15.4 million contract represents one significant component of that overall spending, indicating a sustained investment in groundskeeping over its duration.

What risks are associated with a firm-fixed-price contract of this duration for landscaping services?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract of this duration (nearly 7 years) for landscaping services carries several risks. For the government, the primary risk is that the contractor may become complacent over time, potentially leading to a decline in service quality if performance is not rigorously monitored. If market prices for materials or labor increase significantly beyond initial projections, the contractor might seek to cut corners to maintain profitability, impacting service quality. Conversely, if costs decrease substantially, the government might be overpaying relative to current market conditions. For the contractor, the risk lies in underestimating costs or facing unforeseen challenges (e.g., extreme weather events, regulatory changes) that could erode profit margins.

How does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation impact potential savings for taxpayers?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential bidders were excluded based on specific criteria or justifications. This exclusion could potentially limit the number of highly competitive bids received, thereby reducing the potential for maximum cost savings for taxpayers. If the excluded sources were capable of offering significantly lower prices or more innovative solutions, taxpayers might not have received the best possible value. However, if the exclusion was based on legitimate technical requirements or past performance issues, it could have prevented the award to a less capable or higher-risk contractor, indirectly protecting taxpayer funds.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Services to Buildings and Dwellings › Landscaping 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: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1 W HARLEM RD, KANSAS CITY, MO, 05

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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline