Kirtland AFB Maintenance Contract Awarded to Chenega Integrated Mission Support for Over $114 Million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $114,790,713 ($114.8M)

Contractor: Chenega Integrated Mission Support, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-12-01

End Date: 2018-11-30

Contract Duration: 2,190 days

Daily Burn Rate: $52.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROVIDE ALL PERSONNEL, SERVICES, SUPERVISION, EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, VEHICLES, PROPERTY AND ANY OTHER ITEMS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE BASE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AT KIRTLAND AFB, NM,

Place of Performance

Location: KIRTLAND AFB, BERNALILLO County, NEW MEXICO, 87117

State: New Mexico Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $114.8 million to CHENEGA INTEGRATED MISSION SUPPORT, LLC for work described as: PROVIDE ALL PERSONNEL, SERVICES, SUPERVISION, EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, VEHICLES, PROPERTY AND ANY OTHER ITEMS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE BASE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AT KIRTLAND AFB, NM, Key points: 1. The contract's value suggests a significant need for comprehensive base maintenance services at Kirtland AFB. 2. The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' indicates a competitive process, though the specific exclusion warrants further review. 3. The duration of the contract (2190 days) points to a long-term commitment for facility support. 4. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 5. The award to Chenega Integrated Mission Support, LLC, represents a substantial investment in maintaining critical Air Force infrastructure. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 categorizes this as Facilities Support Services, a common but vital sector for government operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of over $114 million for a period of approximately six years represents a substantial investment in base maintenance. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale base maintenance contracts at comparable Air Force installations would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the firm-fixed-price structure generally aims to provide cost certainty for the government, assuming the contractor can manage costs effectively within the agreed price. The number of bids received (7) suggests a degree of market interest, which can be a positive indicator of competitive pricing.

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 broad, specific sources were excluded from the outset. The exact reasons for this exclusion are not detailed but could relate to specific capabilities, past performance, or other pre-defined criteria. With 7 bidders, the competition level appears moderate, suggesting that while multiple companies were interested, the exclusion may have narrowed the field from a truly unrestricted full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even with multiple bidders, could potentially limit the most competitive pricing. Taxpayers benefit from competition, and any restrictions on the bidding pool warrant scrutiny to ensure the best possible value was achieved.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the United States Air Force personnel and operations at Kirtland AFB, who rely on well-maintained facilities for mission readiness. The services delivered encompass a wide range of base maintenance activities, ensuring the operational integrity of the installation. The geographic impact is localized to Kirtland AFB in New Mexico, supporting a key military installation. The contract likely supports a significant number of jobs in facilities management, maintenance, and related trades, both directly and indirectly.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition type raises questions about the breadth of competition and potential impact on pricing.
The long contract duration could lead to contractor complacency if not managed with robust performance monitoring.
The firm-fixed-price nature means the government bears less risk of cost overruns, but the initial price must be well-justified.

Positive Signals

The award to a single contractor for comprehensive base maintenance suggests a streamlined approach to facility management.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty for the government.
The moderate number of bidders (7) indicates a reasonable level of market interest in this type of contract.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of government operations and infrastructure management. This sector is characterized by a wide range of services, from janitorial and groundskeeping to complex building maintenance and repair. Government spending in this area is substantial, reflecting the vast real estate holdings of federal agencies. Comparable contracts often involve long-term agreements to ensure consistent service delivery and operational stability for military bases and other federal facilities.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans was not explicitly provided in the data. Typically, large base maintenance contracts may include provisions for small business participation, either through direct set-asides for specific tasks or through subcontracting requirements. The absence of this information suggests that either small business participation was not a primary focus of this specific award, or it was managed through broader agency-level small business goals rather than contract-specific clauses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Air Force contracting and technical representatives at Kirtland AFB. Performance would be monitored against the terms and conditions of the firm-fixed-price contract, likely including regular progress meetings, site inspections, and performance evaluations. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and public reporting, though detailed performance metrics are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Installation Support Contracts
Facilities Maintenance and Repair
Department of Defense Infrastructure Management
Air Force Civil Engineering

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
Long contract duration may require robust performance management.
Need for detailed review of Statement of Work (SOW) to fully understand service scope.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $114.8 million to CHENEGA INTEGRATED MISSION SUPPORT, LLC. PROVIDE ALL PERSONNEL, SERVICES, SUPERVISION, EQUIPMENT, TOOLS, VEHICLES, PROPERTY AND ANY OTHER ITEMS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE BASE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT AT KIRTLAND AFB, NM,

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHENEGA INTEGRATED MISSION SUPPORT, 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 $114.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-12-01. End: 2018-11-30.

What specific services are included under the 'base maintenance contract' at Kirtland AFB?

The provided data indicates the contract covers 'all personnel, services, supervision, equipment, tools, vehicles, property and any other items necessary to perform the base maintenance contract.' This is a broad description typically encompassing a wide array of facility upkeep and operational support. Specific services would likely include, but not be limited to, routine maintenance and repair of buildings and infrastructure (HVAC, plumbing, electrical), groundskeeping, waste management, pest control, fire protection system maintenance, and potentially minor construction or renovation tasks. The exact scope would be detailed in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), which is not provided here but is crucial for understanding the full extent of the contractor's responsibilities.

What does 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' mean in practice for this contract?

This procurement method signifies that the contract was initially intended for full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. However, 'after exclusion of sources' indicates that certain potential bidders were deliberately excluded from the competition pool before or during the solicitation process. The reasons for exclusion are not specified but could be due to factors such as specific technical requirements, past performance issues, or other pre-determined criteria outlined in the solicitation. While 7 bids were received, suggesting some level of competition, the exclusion means the government did not consider all possible market participants, which could potentially impact the final price and innovation achieved compared to a truly unrestricted competition.

How does the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type impact risk and cost for the government?

A Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract is characterized by a set price that is not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience in performing the work. This contract type places the primary risk of cost overruns on the contractor. For the government, this offers significant budget certainty, as the total cost is known upfront, assuming the scope of work does not change. The government's main responsibility is to ensure the contractor performs the work to the specified standards. The downside for the government is that if the contractor is highly efficient and incurs lower costs than anticipated, the government does not benefit from that cost savings. Conversely, if the contractor faces unforeseen challenges and costs escalate, the contractor absorbs those losses, which could potentially lead to performance issues if the contractor struggles financially.

What is the significance of the NAICS code 561210 (Facilities Support Services) in the context of this contract?

The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 identifies the primary business activity of the contractor for this award as Facilities Support Services. This classification is broad and encompasses a wide range of services essential for the operation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. For a large federal installation like Kirtland AFB, this code signifies that the contract covers the comprehensive management and execution of services needed to keep the base functional and safe. This includes everything from routine cleaning and landscaping to more complex building systems maintenance and repair. Government agencies rely heavily on contractors in this sector to manage their extensive real estate portfolios efficiently.

What is the historical spending pattern for base maintenance at Kirtland AFB or similar installations?

The provided data only includes details for this specific contract award. To understand historical spending patterns for base maintenance at Kirtland AFB or similar installations, one would need to analyze contract data over multiple years. This would involve looking at previous contracts for base maintenance at Kirtland AFB, as well as contracts for similar services at other Air Force bases of comparable size and complexity. Analyzing trends in contract values, competition levels, and contractor performance over time would reveal whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable, and whether the government has consistently achieved competitive pricing and satisfactory performance. Without this historical context, it is difficult to assess if the $114 million award represents a typical, increased, or decreased level of investment.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: FA940111R0003

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5911 KINGSTOWNE VILLAGE PKWY STE 300, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22315

Business Categories: Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $335,818,092

Exercised Options: $334,939,350

Current Obligation: $114,790,713

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline