DoD's $152M Facilities Support Contract Awarded to ASRC Communications for Alaska Installation Support

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $152,394,503 ($152.4M)

Contractor: Asrc Communications, Ltd.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-10-01

End Date: 2023-10-26

Contract Duration: 1,851 days

Daily Burn Rate: $82.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: INSTALLATION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED LOCATIONS

Place of Performance

Location: ELMENDORF AFB, ANCHORAGE County, ALASKA, 99506

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $152.4 million to ASRC COMMUNICATIONS, LTD. for work described as: INSTALLATION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED LOCATIONS Key points: 1. The contract value of $152.4 million over approximately 5 years represents a significant investment in maintaining geographically separated facilities. 2. The award was made under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' suggesting a specific justification for limiting the initial pool. 3. The definitive contract type indicates a flexible agreement for services, potentially subject to changes in scope or quantity. 4. The fixed-price nature of the contract shifts performance risk to the contractor, ASRC Communications, Ltd. 5. The primary service category is Facilities Support Services, crucial for the operational readiness of Air Force installations. 6. The contract's duration of 1851 days (approx. 5 years) suggests a long-term need for these support services.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $152.4 million contract is challenging without specific service details and performance metrics. However, the duration of nearly five years suggests a substantial, ongoing requirement. The fixed-price contract type implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator for the government if managed effectively. Comparing this to similar large-scale facilities support contracts for remote or geographically dispersed locations would provide a clearer picture of value for money.

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 the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, or the initial solicitation may have had limitations. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'exclusion of sources' suggests a potentially narrower competitive field than a purely 'full and open' competition. This could impact price discovery and potentially lead to higher costs compared to a broader competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the lowest possible price achievable through a wider bidding process. The exclusion of certain sources warrants scrutiny to ensure fairness and maximize taxpayer value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Air Force and its personnel stationed at geographically separated locations in Alaska, ensuring operational continuity. The services delivered include essential facilities support, likely encompassing maintenance, repair, and operational services for infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska (ST: AK, SN: ALASKA), supporting critical military installations in a challenging environment. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for individuals in Alaska, both directly with ASRC Communications, Ltd. and indirectly through subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'Exclusion of Sources' in the competition type raises concerns about the breadth of competition and potential impact on pricing.
Lack of detailed service breakdown makes it difficult to assess if the $152.4M is commensurate with the scope of work.
The definitive contract type, while flexible, can sometimes lead to scope creep if not managed tightly, potentially increasing costs.

Positive Signals

The contract is firm fixed-price, which transfers cost overrun risk to the contractor, ASRC Communications, Ltd.
The award to ASRC Communications, Ltd., a known entity, suggests a level of confidence in their capability to perform.
The long-term nature of the contract (nearly 5 years) provides stability for both the government's support needs and the contractor's operations.

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, including maintenance, repair, operations, and management of physical infrastructure. The market size for government facilities support is substantial, driven by the extensive real estate holdings of federal agencies. This specific contract, supporting geographically dispersed locations in Alaska, highlights the unique challenges and costs associated with operating in remote or harsh environments, often requiring specialized logistics and personnel.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this contract. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the necessary facilities support services through the most competitive means available, rather than specifically targeting small businesses. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem in supporting these critical installations.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Air Force contracting and program management offices. As a definitive contract, it likely involves regular reviews and reporting requirements from ASRC Communications, Ltd. Transparency is dependent on the agency's policies regarding the release of contract performance data and modifications. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Logistics and Readiness Support
Installation and Facilities Management
Defense Infrastructure Services
Government Contracting

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for Cost Overruns
Contractor Performance Risk
Geographic Challenges

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $152.4 million to ASRC COMMUNICATIONS, LTD.. INSTALLATION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED LOCATIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASRC COMMUNICATIONS, LTD..

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 $152.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-10-01. End: 2023-10-26.

What is the specific breakdown of services included under this $152.4 million contract for installation support?

The provided data categorizes the contract under NAICS code 561210 (Facilities Support Services) and describes the work as 'INSTALLATION SUPPORT SERVICES FOR GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED LOCATIONS.' However, a detailed breakdown of specific services such as janitorial, grounds maintenance, HVAC repair, electrical services, plumbing, pest control, or other specialized support is not available in the summary data. Understanding the precise mix of services is crucial for a thorough value assessment and for comparing this contract to similar facilities support agreements. Without this detail, it's difficult to ascertain if the $152.4 million represents a fair price for the scope of work performed over the contract's nearly five-year duration.

How did the 'Exclusion of Sources' impact the final contract price compared to a truly full and open competition?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' designation implies that while the competition was open, certain potential bidders were deliberately excluded based on specific criteria or justifications. The impact on the final price is difficult to quantify precisely without knowing which sources were excluded and why. Typically, broader competition leads to lower prices due to increased bidder urgency and a wider range of capabilities being considered. If the excluded sources represented significant competition or offered unique value propositions, their absence could have resulted in a higher-than-optimal price for the government. Conversely, if the exclusion was based on ensuring specialized capabilities necessary for the unique Alaskan environment, it might have been justified despite a potential price increase.

What is ASRC Communications, Ltd.'s track record with similar large-scale facilities support contracts, particularly in remote or challenging environments?

ASRC Communications, Ltd. has a history of performing government contracts, including those involving complex logistical and operational requirements. While specific details on their past performance for facilities support in geographically challenging areas like Alaska are not provided in this summary, their ability to win a $152.4 million definitive contract from the Department of the Air Force suggests they possess the necessary experience and capacity. A deeper dive into their contract history, client feedback, and any past performance evaluations would be necessary to fully assess their track record and reliability for this specific type of service delivery in a demanding environment.

How does the $152.4 million spending on facilities support in Alaska compare to similar contracts for other remote military installations?

Direct comparison of this $152.4 million contract to similar facilities support contracts for other remote military installations is challenging without standardized metrics and detailed service scopes. However, the cost reflects the inherent expense of operating and maintaining infrastructure in Alaska due to its remote location, harsh climate, and logistical complexities. Factors such as labor costs, transportation of materials and personnel, and the need for specialized equipment in extreme conditions contribute to higher overall spending. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare contracts with similar durations, service levels (e.g., full-spectrum maintenance vs. basic upkeep), and geographic challenges, adjusting for inflation and specific regional economic factors.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success and effectiveness of ASRC Communications, Ltd. under this contract?

The provided summary data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that govern the performance of ASRC Communications, Ltd. under this definitive contract. Typically, for facilities support services, KPIs might include response times for service requests, completion rates for scheduled maintenance, facility uptime percentages, energy efficiency targets, safety incident rates, and customer satisfaction scores from base personnel. The effectiveness of the contract is measured against these metrics, which are usually detailed in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS). Without access to the PWS or performance reports, assessing the contractor's effectiveness and the overall success of the program is speculative.

Are there any known risks associated with ASRC Communications, Ltd. or the nature of facilities support in remote Alaskan locations?

Risks associated with this contract can be categorized. For ASRC Communications, Ltd., potential risks include challenges in recruiting and retaining skilled labor in remote Alaska, supply chain disruptions affecting material delivery, unexpected infrastructure failures requiring costly repairs, and navigating complex environmental regulations. For the government, risks include potential cost overruns if the fixed-price contract doesn't adequately account for unforeseen conditions, contractor performance issues impacting base operations, and the 'Exclusion of Sources' potentially limiting competitive pricing. The remote Alaskan environment itself presents inherent risks related to weather, accessibility, and the high cost of doing business.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: FA521517R9002

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

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

Business Categories: 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: $557,630,458

Exercised Options: $328,135,664

Current Obligation: $152,394,503

Actual Outlays: $40,715,402

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 125

Total Subaward Amount: $22,948,613

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline