DoD awards $44M facilities support contract to ASRC Federal Field Services for JBER, Alaska

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $43,992,752 ($44.0M)

Contractor: Asrc Federal Field Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2021-02-25

End Date: 2026-02-24

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $24.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: BASE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT JBER, ALASKA

Place of Performance

Location: JBER, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99506

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $44.0 million to ASRC FEDERAL FIELD SERVICES, LLC for work described as: BASE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT JBER, ALASKA Key points: 1. Contract value of $44M over 5 years suggests a significant investment in base operations. 2. Full and open competition after exclusion of sources indicates a deliberate procurement strategy. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. Facilities support services are critical for maintaining military readiness and personnel well-being. 5. The contract's duration of 1825 days aligns with typical long-term base support needs. 6. Geographic concentration in Alaska presents unique logistical and operational challenges.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's base value of approximately $44 million over five years for base operations and maintenance at JBER, Alaska, appears reasonable given the scope of services. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facilities support contracts for military installations is complex due to varying geographic locations, service requirements, and security considerations. However, the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type suggests that the contractor bears the primary risk for cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if managed effectively. Further analysis would require detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to industry standards for similar services in remote or challenging environments.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This procurement method suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded based on pre-defined criteria or previous performance. The presence of four bidders indicates a competitive landscape, but the exclusion clause warrants further investigation to understand its impact on the breadth of competition and potential price discovery. A truly open competition typically involves a wider range of potential offerors.

Taxpayer Impact: The 'full and open' nature, even with exclusions, aims to leverage market competition to secure the best value for taxpayers. However, the exclusion of certain sources could potentially limit the most competitive pricing if key players were inadvertently or deliberately left out.

Public Impact

Service members and their families stationed at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) will benefit from reliable base operations and maintenance. Essential services such as facility upkeep, infrastructure maintenance, and potentially groundskeeping will be delivered. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska, supporting a major military installation in a unique operational environment. The contract supports a workforce involved in facilities management and maintenance, potentially including local hires.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if unforeseen environmental or logistical challenges arise in Alaska.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical base support functions could create vulnerabilities.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause requires scrutiny to ensure it did not unduly limit competition.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor, incentivizing efficiency.
Multiple bidders suggest a competitive process was established, potentially leading to better pricing.
Long-term contract provides stability for base operations and contractor planning.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of the broader facilities management industry. This sector encompasses a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. The market for government facilities support is substantial, driven by the extensive real estate holdings of federal agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale base operations and maintenance contracts awarded by the Department of Defense to other military installations, particularly those in similar geographic or climatic conditions.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this specific contract award. This suggests that the primary focus was on full and open competition, potentially favoring larger, established firms capable of handling the extensive scope of services. There is no explicit mention of subcontracting requirements for small businesses within the provided data, which could limit opportunities for smaller entities to participate in supporting this large contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Air Force, likely through contracting officers' representatives (CORs) and program managers. Accountability measures would be embedded in the firm-fixed-price contract terms, performance standards, and payment schedules. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, though detailed performance metrics and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Defense Infrastructure Projects
Government Facilities Management
Alaska Military Construction

Risk Flags

Potential for cost increases due to remote location and logistical challenges in Alaska.
Contract performance risk associated with a single prime contractor for critical base functions.
Need to verify justification and impact of 'exclusion of sources' on competition breadth.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $44.0 million to ASRC FEDERAL FIELD SERVICES, LLC. BASE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT JBER, ALASKA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASRC FEDERAL FIELD SERVICES, 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 $44.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-02-25. End: 2026-02-24.

What is the track record of ASRC Federal Field Services, LLC in performing similar large-scale base operations and maintenance contracts for the Department of Defense?

ASRC Federal Field Services, LLC, as part of the larger ASRC Federal organization, has a history of performing various government contracting services, including base operations and maintenance. To assess their track record specifically for this type of contract, a review of their past performance evaluations, contract history with the DoD, and any reported issues or successes on similar projects would be necessary. This would involve examining data from sources like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) if available, and looking for evidence of successful completion of contracts with comparable scope, complexity, and duration. Their experience in challenging environments, such as Alaska, would also be a key factor in evaluating their capability to execute this specific contract effectively.

How does the awarded price of approximately $44 million over five years compare to similar facilities support contracts at other military installations?

Comparing the $44 million contract value for JBER, Alaska, requires careful consideration of numerous factors that influence pricing in facilities support contracts. These include the size and scope of the installation, the specific services required (e.g., janitorial, HVAC, electrical, plumbing, grounds maintenance), geographic location (Alaska presents unique logistical costs), climate, labor rates, and the level of competition. A direct dollar-for-dollar comparison is often misleading. However, by normalizing costs per square foot or per service member supported, and adjusting for regional economic differences, one could benchmark this contract against similar DoD installations. Without access to detailed cost breakdowns and specific performance metrics, a precise value-for-money assessment relative to peers remains challenging, but the firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined cost ceiling.

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

The primary risks for this contract include potential cost overruns due to the challenging Alaskan environment (logistics, weather, remote operations), contractor performance issues leading to service disruptions, and unforeseen infrastructure failures. Given the firm-fixed-price structure, the contractor bears significant financial risk for cost overruns, incentivizing efficient management. Mitigation strategies likely include robust performance monitoring by the government, clear service level agreements (SLAs), contingency planning for logistical challenges, and potentially performance bonds. The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition also presents a risk if it inadvertently limited the pool of highly capable bidders, potentially impacting long-term cost-effectiveness or innovation.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method in ensuring competitive pricing for this type of service?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method aims to balance broad competition with specific requirements or past performance considerations. While 'full and open' suggests an intention to solicit from all responsible sources, the 'exclusion' clause indicates that certain entities were deliberately not considered. This can be effective if the exclusions are well-justified (e.g., based on documented poor performance or specific technical capabilities not widely available). However, if the exclusions are too broad or arbitrary, they can limit the number of bidders, potentially reducing competitive pressure and leading to higher prices than a truly unrestricted competition might yield. The presence of four bidders suggests some level of competition was achieved, but the impact of the exclusions on the final price is a key analytical question.

What is the historical spending pattern for base operations and maintenance services at JBER, Alaska, and how does this $44M award fit within that trend?

To analyze historical spending patterns for JBER, one would need to access historical contract data for similar services at this installation over previous years. This would involve identifying previous contracts for base operations and maintenance, their values, durations, and awarded contractors. By comparing the current $44 million award over five years to the aggregate spending in prior periods, analysts can determine if this represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment. Trends might reveal changes in service requirements, inflation impacts, or shifts in contracting strategies. Understanding this historical context is crucial for assessing whether the current award is consistent with past resource allocation or represents a significant deviation.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7000 MUIRKIRK MEADOWS DR STE 100, BELTSVILLE, MD, 20705

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $43,992,752

Exercised Options: $43,992,752

Current Obligation: $43,992,752

Actual Outlays: $3,281,185

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 28

Total Subaward Amount: $10,431,270

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline