DoD's $20.2M Facilities Support Contract Awarded to M.C. Dean, Inc. for Building Maintenance

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $20,231,170 ($20.2M)

Contractor: M. C. Dean, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2022-09-11

End Date: 2025-09-10

Contract Duration: 1,095 days

Daily Burn Rate: $18.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: C2F BLDG 1000 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICE

Place of Performance

Location: OFFUTT AFB, SARPY County, NEBRASKA, 68113

State: Nebraska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $20.2 million to M. C. DEAN, INC. for work described as: C2F BLDG 1000 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICE Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract is a firm-fixed-price delivery order, providing cost certainty for the government. 3. Duration of 1095 days (3 years) indicates a medium-term commitment for essential services. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 points to a focus on facilities support services. 5. The awardee, M.C. Dean, Inc., has a significant presence in government contracting, particularly for facilities management. 6. The contract is not set aside for small businesses, implying larger prime contractors are expected to perform the work. 7. The contract is a delivery order against a larger contract vehicle, suggesting it's part of a broader procurement strategy.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

Benchmarking the value of this $20.2 million contract for facilities support services requires comparison to similar contracts for building maintenance and repair. Given the firm-fixed-price structure, the government has a defined cost for the duration. However, without specific details on the scope of services (e.g., square footage, types of maintenance), a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The number of bids received (2) is on the lower side for a full and open competition, which could indicate potential for higher pricing than if more bidders were involved. The contractor's experience in this sector will be a key factor in determining if the price reflects efficient service delivery.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a 'full and open competition' solicitation, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The data indicates two bids were received. While 'full and open' is the preferred method for maximizing competition, receiving only two offers might suggest limitations in the market for these specific services or potential barriers to entry for other firms. This level of competition could impact price discovery, potentially leading to less aggressive pricing compared to scenarios with a higher number of bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process, even with two bidders, aims to secure a fair market price for taxpayers. However, fewer bidders can sometimes result in higher costs than if a wider range of companies competed, potentially increasing the overall expenditure for the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force, ensuring the operational readiness and maintenance of facilities. Services delivered include maintenance and repair for Building 1000, crucial for supporting military operations and personnel. The geographic impact is localized to the specific Air Force installation where Building 1000 is located. Workforce implications may include direct employment by M.C. Dean, Inc. for maintenance technicians, engineers, and support staff. Ensures a safe and functional working environment for Air Force personnel stationed at the facility.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders) may have reduced price pressure.
Firm-fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to less flexibility if unforeseen issues arise requiring scope changes.
The specific scope of 'maintenance and repair' is broad and could encompass a wide range of potential costs.
Contract duration of 3 years might not fully capture long-term infrastructure needs or evolving technology.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating an attempt to solicit broad market interest.
Firm-fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the government.
M.C. Dean, Inc. is an established contractor with significant experience in facilities management, suggesting a lower risk of performance issues.
Delivery order structure allows for phased execution and payment against a larger contract vehicle.

Sector Analysis

Facilities support services, encompassing building maintenance, repair, and operations, represent a significant segment of the government contracting market. This sector is characterized by a mix of large, established firms and smaller specialized companies. The NAICS code 561210 covers a broad range of activities, from janitorial services to complex building systems maintenance. Government spending in this area is consistently high due to the extensive real estate portfolio managed by federal agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically look at cost per square foot for maintenance or the total value of similar multi-year facilities support contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data indicates the prime contractor is not a small business. This suggests that the primary award went to a large entity capable of handling the scope and scale of facilities support services required. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this specific delivery order. However, large prime contractors often utilize small businesses for specialized maintenance tasks or support roles, which could still provide opportunities within the broader contract ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Air Force's contracting and facility management offices. As a delivery order against a larger contract, there may be established oversight mechanisms from the parent contract. Accountability measures would include performance metrics, service level agreements, and inspection protocols. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like SAM.gov. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise related to the contract's performance or award.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Architectural and Engineering Services
Construction and Repair Services
Logistics and Facilities Management Contracts
Real Property Maintenance

Risk Flags

Limited competition
Potential for scope creep
Contractor performance risk
Value for money assessment requires more detailed service scope

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $20.2 million to M. C. DEAN, INC.. C2F BLDG 1000 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is M. C. DEAN, 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 $20.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-09-11. End: 2025-09-10.

What is the track record of M.C. Dean, Inc. with the Department of Defense and specifically the Air Force for facilities support services?

M.C. Dean, Inc. has a substantial history of contracting with the Department of Defense and its various branches, including the Air Force, for a wide array of services, particularly in facilities management, engineering, and technical support. Their portfolio often includes large-scale, complex projects involving building operations, maintenance, security systems, and energy management. Analyzing their past performance on similar Air Force contracts would involve reviewing performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS reports), contract modifications, and any documented disputes or awards. A strong track record with the agency suggests familiarity with requirements, established processes, and a higher likelihood of successful contract execution, which is a positive indicator for this award.

How does the price of this contract compare to similar facilities support contracts awarded by the Air Force or other DoD components?

A direct price comparison is challenging without knowing the precise scope of services, square footage, and specific maintenance requirements for Building 1000. However, the total award of $20.2 million over three years averages approximately $6.73 million per year. This annual figure can be benchmarked against other facilities support contracts for similar-sized installations or buildings within the DoD. Factors like geographic location (cost of labor and materials), age and complexity of the facility, and the criticality of its function influence pricing. If M.C. Dean, Inc. is performing services comparable to other contracts at a similar or lower annual cost per square foot or per facility, it suggests good value. Conversely, significantly higher annual costs without justification would raise concerns.

What are the primary risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract for facilities maintenance and repair?

The primary risk with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract for facilities maintenance and repair is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on service quality to maintain profitability if unforeseen issues arise or costs escalate beyond initial estimates. While FFP provides cost certainty for the government, it places the risk of cost overruns on the contractor. If the scope of work is not clearly defined or if unexpected major repairs are needed (e.g., structural issues, HVAC failure), the contractor may be incentivized to perform only the minimum required maintenance rather than addressing underlying problems comprehensively, potentially leading to higher long-term costs for the government or reduced facility lifespan. Robust government oversight and clear performance standards are crucial to mitigate these risks.

Given the 'full and open competition' with only two bidders, what does this imply about the market for these services and potential future competition?

The fact that this 'full and open competition' resulted in only two offers suggests that the market for this specific type of facilities support service, at this particular location and scale, may be limited. This could be due to several factors: high barriers to entry (e.g., bonding requirements, specialized equipment, security clearances), the specific technical expertise required, or the geographic concentration of qualified contractors. For future procurements, this limited competition could persist, potentially leading to sustained higher prices or longer lead times if demand remains constant. Agencies may need to explore strategies to encourage more competition, such as breaking down large contracts into smaller lots, providing more detailed pre-solicitation information, or actively seeking out and encouraging new entrants into the market.

What are the implications of this contract being a 'delivery order' rather than a standalone contract?

This contract being a 'delivery order' (DO) signifies that it is a task order issued under a previously awarded indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar type of contract vehicle. This approach allows agencies to procure services or supplies over a period of time up to a certain maximum value, issuing individual orders as needed. For the government, it offers flexibility in timing and quantity. For the contractor, it provides a stream of potential work. The implications here are that the initial competition likely occurred at the IDIQ level, and this DO represents one specific task (maintenance for Building 1000) being executed under that broader agreement. Oversight and performance management are critical at both the IDIQ and DO levels.

How does the duration of the contract (1095 days) align with typical facilities maintenance cycles and government procurement strategies?

A contract duration of 1095 days, equivalent to three years, is a common term for facilities support services. This timeframe allows for stable service provision, enabling the contractor to establish efficient operations and the government to benefit from consistent maintenance. It aligns with typical medium-term government procurement strategies, balancing the need for continuity with the desire to periodically re-evaluate the market and contract terms. Shorter durations might lead to frequent re-competition costs and potential service disruptions, while excessively long durations could reduce flexibility and potentially lock the government into suboptimal pricing or service levels. Three years provides a reasonable balance for planning and execution in facilities management.

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

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1765 GREENSBORO STATION PL, TYSONS, VA, 22102

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $64,238,046

Exercised Options: $24,800,840

Current Obligation: $20,231,170

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 19

Total Subaward Amount: $3,222,432

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47QSHA18D0009

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline