Department of Defense awards $362.8M contract for facilities operations support services to EJB Facilities Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $362,773,047 ($362.8M)

Contractor: EJB Facilities Services

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-08-01

End Date: 2014-09-30

Contract Duration: 3,347 days

Daily Burn Rate: $108.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200612!601404!1700!N44255!ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY !N4425505D5103 !A!N! !Y!FB00 !07 !20060301!20060930!149250016!149250016!149250016!N!EJB FACILITIES SERVICES !320 23RD ST S STE 100 !ARLINGTON !VA!22202!04105!035!53!BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARI!KITSAP !WASHINGTON!+000000534683!N!N!000000000000!S216!FACILITIES OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !561210!E! !5!B!S!D! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!N!J!2!004!B! !C!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !Z!Z!A!A!000!A!C!N! ! ! !Y!1700!N68436!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: SILVERDALE, KITSAP County, WASHINGTON, 98315

State: Washington Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $362.8 million to EJB FACILITIES SERVICES for work described as: 200612!601404!1700!N44255!ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY !N4425505D5103 !A!N! !Y!FB00 !07 !20060301!20060930!149250016!149250016!149250016!N!EJB FACILITIES SERVICES !320 23RD ST S STE 100 !ARLINGTON !VA!22202!04105!035!53!BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARI!KITS… Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 3347 days (approximately 9.2 years) indicates a long-term need for these services. 3. The primary service category is Facilities Support Services, a critical component of operational readiness. 4. The contract was awarded to EJB Facilities Services, a company with a significant contract value. 5. The contract's value of over $362 million signifies a substantial investment in maintaining defense facilities. 6. The award was made by the Department of the Navy, highlighting its specific requirements for facility management.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award amount of $362,800,000 over a period of approximately 9.2 years suggests a significant but potentially reasonable annual expenditure for comprehensive facilities operations support. Benchmarking this against similar long-term, large-scale facilities management contracts within the Department of Defense would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the duration and scope imply a need for consistent, high-quality service delivery, which can justify a substantial investment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 4 bids suggests a healthy level of competition for this significant contract. This competitive environment is generally favorable for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive pricing for the services required.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process like this typically benefits taxpayers by driving down costs and encouraging innovation among contractors to offer the best value.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the personnel and operations at Bangor Naval Submarine Base in Washington, who rely on these services for a functional and safe environment. The services delivered include comprehensive facilities operations support, encompassing maintenance, repair, and management of infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated at the Bangor Naval Submarine Base in Kitsap, Washington. The contract supports the operational readiness and effectiveness of a key naval installation, indirectly benefiting national security.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 9 years) may lead to contractor complacency or reduced responsiveness over time.
The sheer scale of the contract value could present challenges in oversight and performance management.
Potential for cost overruns if not meticulously managed, despite the firm-fixed-price nature.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical facilities operations could pose risks if the contractor faces financial or operational difficulties.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust selection process.
Firm Fixed Price contract type helps control costs and shifts some risk to the contractor.
The long duration suggests a stable, predictable service provision for the base.
The significant value indicates the importance and scale of the services required, likely meeting critical operational needs.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services represent a significant segment within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This contract, valued at over $362 million, falls within the upper echelon of spending for this category. The market for facilities management is competitive, with numerous providers ranging from small specialized firms to large diversified corporations. This contract's size and duration suggest it is a major award, likely captured by a well-established entity capable of handling extensive operational requirements for a large government installation.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting plans for small businesses. Given the large dollar value and the nature of comprehensive facilities operations, it is possible that the prime contractor may engage small businesses for specialized support services, but this is not detailed in the provided information. The absence of a small business set-aside suggests the competition was open to all responsible bidders, and the prime contractor was selected based on overall capability and price.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) award, which inherently provides a degree of cost control. Oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the requiring activity within the Department of the Navy, likely through contract specialists and technical representatives. Performance monitoring, site inspections, and regular progress reports would be standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics and specific oversight activities are often internal.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support Services
Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Naval Base Operations
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Government Contracting for Services

Risk Flags

Long-term contract duration may increase risk of vendor complacency.
Large contract value requires diligent oversight to prevent cost creep or performance issues.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical infrastructure support.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $362.8 million to EJB FACILITIES SERVICES. 200612!601404!1700!N44255!ENGINEERING FIELD ACTIVITY !N4425505D5103 !A!N! !Y!FB00 !07 !20060301!20060930!149250016!149250016!149250016!N!EJB FACILITIES SERVICES !320 23RD ST S STE 100 !ARLINGTON !VA!22202!04105!035!53!BANGOR NAVAL SUBMARI!KITSAP !WASHINGTON!+000000534683!N!N!000000000000!S216!FACILITIES OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !NOT DISCERNABLE !561210!E! !5!B!S!D! ! !999

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is EJB FACILITIES SERVICES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $362.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-08-01. End: 2014-09-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities operations support services at Bangor Naval Submarine Base?

Analyzing historical spending for facilities operations support at Bangor Naval Submarine Base prior to this $362.8 million award would provide crucial context. Without specific historical data, it's difficult to determine if this contract represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment. However, the substantial value and long duration (over 9 years) suggest a consistent and significant requirement for these services. Understanding past contract values, durations, and awarded contractors would help assess if EJB Facilities Services' award is a continuation of a long-standing relationship or a shift in service provision. It would also help identify any trends in cost escalation or service scope changes over time.

How does the per-unit cost of services under this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities?

Determining the precise per-unit cost for services under this $362.8 million contract is challenging without a detailed breakdown of the services provided and their associated quantities (e.g., cost per square foot maintained, cost per maintenance task). However, as a Firm Fixed Price contract awarded through full and open competition with 4 bidders, there's an expectation that the pricing is competitive. To benchmark, one would need to compare the contract's total value against the scope of services and compare that to average costs for similar facilities management contracts at other large naval bases or comparable government installations. Factors like geographic location, specific infrastructure complexity, and required security levels would influence these benchmarks.

What is the track record of EJB Facilities Services in managing large-scale government contracts?

EJB Facilities Services' track record in managing large-scale government contracts is a key indicator of their capability to execute this $362.8 million award. Information on their past performance, including contract values, durations, types of services provided, and client agencies, would be essential. Specifically, assessing their history with similar facilities operations support contracts, their on-time and on-budget performance, and any past performance issues or awards would provide insight into their reliability. A review of past performance evaluations or contract termination data, if available, would further inform this assessment.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they being mitigated?

Primary risks for this $362.8 million facilities operations support contract include potential cost overruns (despite FFP), contractor performance failures, security vulnerabilities, and long-term dependence on a single provider. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust oversight by the Department of the Navy, including performance monitoring, regular inspections, and clear performance standards. The FFP structure itself mitigates cost risk for the government. The competitive award process suggests a capable contractor was chosen. However, ongoing vigilance, contingency planning for contractor default, and potentially phased service delivery could further address risks.

How does the scope of services in this contract align with the operational needs of a major naval base?

The contract's focus on 'Facilities Operations Support Services' is fundamental to the operational needs of a major naval base like Bangor. This typically encompasses a wide range of essential functions, including maintenance of buildings and infrastructure, utility management, groundskeeping, waste management, and potentially security support. Ensuring these facilities are well-maintained, functional, and safe is critical for the readiness and effectiveness of naval operations, personnel well-being, and the security of sensitive assets. The substantial value and long duration suggest the scope is comprehensive and aligned with the enduring requirements of such a critical installation.

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

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 320 23RD. STREET SOUTH, ARLINGTON, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $583,993,241

Exercised Options: $583,993,241

Current Obligation: $362,773,047

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N4425505D5103

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline