HHS awards $25.18M facilities management contract to KI, LLC over 5 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $25,184,744 ($25.2M)

Contractor: KI, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Health and Human Services

Start Date: 2004-07-19

End Date: 2009-07-31

Contract Duration: 1,838 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: KI - 04-7935 - FACILITIES MGMT

Place of Performance

Location: PITTSBURGH, ALLEGHENY County, PENNSYLVANIA, 15236, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Health and Human Services obligated $25.2 million to KI, LLC for work described as: KI - 04-7935 - FACILITIES MGMT Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes performance but can lead to higher costs. 3. Duration of 1838 days (approx. 5 years) indicates a long-term need for facilities management services. 4. The contract was awarded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a key agency within HHS. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 points to a focus on facilities support services. 6. The base award amount is $13.7M, with potential for growth up to $25.18M. 7. The contract was awarded in 2004 and expired in 2009, indicating historical spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $25.18 million over approximately five years for facilities management services appears within a reasonable range for a federal agency of the CDC's size. However, without specific details on the scope of services and performance metrics, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for contractor flexibility and performance incentives, but it also carries a risk of cost overruns if not managed diligently. Benchmarking against similar facilities management contracts at other federal agencies would provide a clearer picture of its cost-effectiveness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' which typically means that the agency initially considered excluding certain sources but ultimately opened the competition to all responsible offerors. This suggests a robust bidding process where multiple companies had the opportunity to compete. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the designation implies that the government sought the best value through a competitive solicitation, which generally leads to better pricing and service options for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that drives down prices and encourages innovation, leading to more efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) benefits from reliable facilities management, ensuring operational continuity. Essential services such as building maintenance, repair, and potentially groundskeeping are delivered. The geographic impact is primarily focused on CDC facilities, likely located in Atlanta, Georgia, and potentially other sites. The contract supports jobs within the facilities management sector, including maintenance staff, technicians, and administrative personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts can sometimes lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts if not managed effectively.
The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation into the initial rationale for exclusion and the subsequent decision to open competition.
Lack of specific performance metrics and outcomes makes it difficult to fully assess the award fee component's effectiveness in driving value.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a commitment to competitive sourcing.
The contract duration suggests a stable, long-term need for these essential services.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure, if managed well, can incentivize high performance and quality service delivery.

Sector Analysis

Facilities management is a critical support sector for government operations, encompassing a wide range of services from routine maintenance to complex building systems management. The market for federal facilities management is substantial, with numerous contracts awarded annually across various agencies. This contract with the CDC fits within the broader government services industry, where companies compete on price, expertise, and past performance. Benchmarking this contract's value against similar-sized facilities management contracts for federal agencies would provide context on its relative cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. However, as a large contract, it is possible that the prime contractor, KI, LLC, may have engaged small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill certain aspects of the contract, though this is not explicitly stated in the data. The absence of a small business set-aside means that larger, established firms were likely the primary competitors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been primarily managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, performance monitoring and evaluation would be crucial to determine award fees. Transparency would be facilitated through contract databases like FPDS-NG (Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation). Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Facilities Management Services
Department of Health and Human Services Contracts
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Procurement
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules (potential overlap)
Government Building Operations and Maintenance

Risk Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires careful monitoring to ensure cost control.
Competition type 'after exclusion of sources' warrants understanding the initial rationale.
Contract performance data (KPIs, disputes) not available for full assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Health and Human Services awarded $25.2 million to KI, LLC. KI - 04-7935 - FACILITIES MGMT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KI, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Health and Human Services (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $25.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-07-19. End: 2009-07-31.

What was the specific scope of facilities management services covered under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 561210, which is Facilities Support Services. This typically encompasses a broad range of activities including operation, maintenance, and repair of buildings and grounds. Services could include HVAC maintenance, plumbing, electrical work, janitorial services, pest control, landscaping, security system maintenance, and general upkeep of the facilities. The specific details of the services would have been outlined in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), which is not available in the provided data. The 'Facilities Management' designation suggests a comprehensive approach to ensuring the operational readiness and safety of the CDC's physical infrastructure.

How did KI, LLC's past performance and technical capabilities compare to other bidders during the competition?

The provided data does not include details on the evaluation criteria or the specific technical proposals and past performance records of the bidders. However, since the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' it implies that KI, LLC was deemed to offer the best value based on the established evaluation factors. These factors typically include technical approach, past performance, management capability, and price. The agency would have assessed KI, LLC's track record on similar contracts, their proposed management plan, and their understanding of the government's requirements to determine their suitability and competitive advantage over other offerors.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine the award fee for KI, LLC?

The data specifies the contract type as Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF), which means that KI, LLC's performance was evaluated against specific criteria outlined in the contract to determine eligibility for an award fee. While the exact KPIs are not provided, they typically relate to service delivery, response times, quality of work, cost control, and adherence to schedules. For facilities management, KPIs might include response times for emergency repairs, preventative maintenance completion rates, customer satisfaction scores from facility users, energy efficiency targets, and compliance with safety regulations. The contracting officer and relevant program personnel would have monitored these KPIs throughout the contract period to assess performance and justify the award fee.

How does the total contract value of $25.18 million compare to other federal facilities management contracts of similar scope and duration?

Benchmarking the $25.18 million total contract value requires comparing it to similar facilities management contracts awarded by federal agencies for comparable facilities and service levels. Without knowing the exact square footage managed, the specific services included (e.g., specialized equipment maintenance, security), and the geographic location's cost of living, a precise comparison is difficult. However, for a multi-year contract supporting a major federal health agency like the CDC, this value appears within a plausible range. Larger, more complex facilities or those in high-cost areas would naturally command higher contract values. A detailed analysis would involve comparing metrics like cost per square foot or cost per facility managed against a portfolio of similar federal contracts.

What was the historical spending trend for facilities management services at the CDC prior to this contract?

The provided data only pertains to this specific contract awarded in 2004. It does not offer insights into the CDC's historical spending patterns for facilities management services before or after this period. To understand the historical trend, one would need to analyze procurement data for the CDC over several years, identifying all contracts related to facilities management, their values, durations, and awardees. This would reveal whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable, and whether there has been a shift in contracting strategies (e.g., from sole-source to competitive awards, or changes in contract types).

Were there any significant challenges or disputes encountered during the performance of this contract?

The provided data does not contain information regarding challenges, disputes, contract modifications, or termination history for this specific contract. Such details are typically found in contract performance reports, modification logs, or official dispute resolution records, which are not included here. Generally, federal contracts can face challenges related to scope creep, performance deficiencies, funding issues, or disagreements over contract terms. Without access to more detailed contract administration records, it is impossible to determine if this particular contract experienced any significant issues during its five-year term.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: 2004N01004

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5475 MARK DABLING BLVD, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 80918

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $726,463,929

Exercised Options: $374,067,674

Current Obligation: $25,184,744

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Timeline