DoD's $6.56M Facilities Support Services Contract Awarded to Bering Global Solutions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,559,910 ($6.6M)

Contractor: Bering Global Solutions, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-03-01

End Date: 2026-02-28

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.5K/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: BASE SUPPLY SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: HURLBURT FIELD, OKALOOSA County, FLORIDA, 32544

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $6.6 million to BERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC for work described as: BASE SUPPLY SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded for essential base support services, indicating a need for consistent operational readiness. 2. The contract was competed under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), suggesting a focus on efficiency for smaller procurements. 3. A firm-fixed-price structure aims to provide cost certainty for the government. 4. The contract duration of 1460 days (4 years) allows for stable service provision. 5. The award to Bering Global Solutions, LLC highlights a specific contractor's role in supporting defense infrastructure. 6. The geographic location in Florida (FL) suggests a focus on a particular regional base or installation.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's base value of $6.56 million over four years for base supply services appears reasonable for facilities support. Benchmarking against similar contracts for base operations and maintenance services would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The firm-fixed-price nature helps control costs, but the absence of detailed performance metrics makes a definitive value assessment challenging without further data.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was competed under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), which typically involves a limited number of bidders compared to full and open competition. While the exact number of bids received is not specified, SAP is designed for procurements below certain thresholds, aiming for efficiency. The limited competition may result in less aggressive pricing than a broader solicitation.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of SAP suggests an effort to streamline the procurement process for this contract value, potentially saving administrative costs. However, taxpayers may not benefit from the most competitive pricing achievable through wider market engagement.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force and its personnel at the Florida installation, who receive essential base supply and facilities support. Services delivered include a range of facilities support functions critical for base operations and readiness. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florida, supporting a specific military installation. Workforce implications may include direct employment by Bering Global Solutions, LLC and potential indirect support roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited price competition due to SAP procurement.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes ongoing value assessment difficult.
Contract duration could lead to complacency if not actively managed.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability.
Longer contract duration ensures service continuity.
Award to a single contractor streamlines management and accountability.

Sector Analysis

Facilities support services represent a significant segment of the government contracting market, encompassing a wide array of operational and maintenance functions for federal installations. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. Comparable spending benchmarks for base operations and support services vary widely based on installation size, scope of services, and geographic location. The $6.56 million award over four years suggests a mid-sized contract for supporting a specific installation's needs.

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 or specific benefits for the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside. The prime contractor, Bering Global Solutions, LLC, is responsible for fulfilling the contract requirements, and any subcontracting decisions would be at their discretion.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Air Force. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract structure, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance reports may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Facilities Maintenance Services
Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Government Contracting Services

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition under SAP
Contract performance risk
Price reasonableness concerns without further benchmarking

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $6.6 million to BERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC. BASE SUPPLY SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC.

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 $6.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-03-01. End: 2026-02-28.

What is the track record of Bering Global Solutions, LLC in performing similar base supply and facilities support contracts for the Department of Defense?

Assessing the track record of Bering Global Solutions, LLC requires a review of their past performance on similar contracts. This would involve examining contract histories, past performance evaluations (if available), and any reported issues or successes. For instance, were they previously awarded similar firm-fixed-price contracts for facilities support? Did they meet performance standards and delivery timelines on those contracts? Understanding their experience with the specific services required (e.g., supply chain management, maintenance, operational support) and their ability to manage contracts of comparable size and duration is crucial for evaluating their capability to successfully execute this current award. Without specific past performance data, it's difficult to definitively gauge their reliability and expertise in this domain.

How does the awarded price of $6.56 million compare to market rates for similar base supply services in Florida?

To benchmark the $6.56 million award against market rates, one would need to analyze similar contracts for base supply and facilities support services in the Florida region. This involves identifying comparable contracts awarded by federal, state, or local governments, as well as private sector entities, for services of a similar scope and duration. Factors such as the specific services included (e.g., inventory management, equipment maintenance, logistical support), the size and complexity of the installation being supported, and the prevailing labor and material costs in the Florida market are critical. If data indicates that similar contracts in the region typically range higher or lower, it would provide context for whether this award represents a competitive price point or potentially an outlier. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to lock in costs, but the true value is determined by comparing it to what the market would otherwise bear for equivalent services.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

Primary risks for this contract could include contractor performance issues, such as failure to deliver services adequately or on time, leading to disruptions in base operations. Cost overruns, although mitigated by the firm-fixed-price structure, could still occur if unforeseen circumstances arise and change orders are necessary. There's also a risk related to the limited competition under SAP, potentially resulting in less favorable pricing than a fully competed contract. Mitigation strategies would involve robust government oversight, clear performance standards outlined in the contract, regular performance reviews, and potentially incentive clauses or penalties. The contracting officer's vigilance in monitoring contractor performance and managing contract modifications is key to mitigating these risks and ensuring mission accomplishment.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price contract type in ensuring value for money for these base supply services?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered effective in ensuring value for money when the scope of work is well-defined and risks are understood. For base supply services, where the requirements are often routine and predictable, FFP provides cost certainty for the government, transferring most of the cost risk to the contractor. This incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently and perform the work within the agreed-upon price. However, the effectiveness hinges on the government's ability to accurately define the scope and monitor performance. If the scope is poorly defined or significant unforeseen issues arise, the FFP structure might lead to contractor requests for equitable adjustments or, in extreme cases, contractor default, potentially negating the intended value. Regular performance monitoring is essential to ensure the contractor is meeting quality standards within the fixed price.

What is the historical spending pattern for base supply services at this specific Air Force installation in Florida?

To understand the historical spending pattern for base supply services at this specific Air Force installation in Florida, one would need to access historical contract data for that installation. This would involve searching federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending) for contracts awarded for similar services (NAICS code 561210 or related codes) to that installation over previous years. Analyzing this data would reveal the total amount spent annually or over multi-year periods, the types of contracts used (e.g., FFP, cost-plus), the incumbent contractors, and the average contract values. Comparing the current $6.56 million award over four years to historical spending would indicate whether this represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in base supply services for the installation, providing context on the long-term financial commitment.

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: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Solicitation ID: FA441721R0017

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3301 C STREET, SUITE 400, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $8,197,083

Exercised Options: $6,617,484

Current Obligation: $6,559,910

Actual Outlays: $96,339

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline