DHS spent over $73M on security guard services, with limited competition and a firm fixed price

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $73,245,592 ($73.2M)

Contractor: G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2010-08-30

End Date: 2011-08-29

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $201.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRANSPORTATION AND GUARD SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: WEST PALM BEACH, PALM BEACH County, FLORIDA, 33410

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $73.2 million to G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC. for work described as: TRANSPORTATION AND GUARD SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract utilized a firm fixed price, which can offer cost certainty but may limit flexibility. 2. Limited competition for this contract raises questions about potential price overruns and value for money. 3. The duration of the contract (364 days) is standard for this type of service. 4. The primary service area is Florida, indicating a geographically concentrated need. 5. The contract was awarded under a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call, suggesting it was part of a larger existing agreement. 6. The absence of small business set-asides means opportunities for smaller firms may have been limited.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total value of $73.2 million for security guard services over one year appears substantial. Without comparable contract data or detailed service requirements, it's difficult to definitively benchmark value. However, the firm fixed price structure suggests an attempt to control costs. The lack of competition, discussed further in the CA section, is a significant factor that could impact the overall value achieved for taxpayer dollars.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was not competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) and was awarded as a BPA Call. The data indicates 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP', which, combined with the single award, suggests a limited competition environment. While BPA calls can streamline procurement for pre-negotiated services, the lack of broader competition for this specific call means fewer vendors had the opportunity to bid, potentially impacting price discovery and the government's ability to secure the most competitive rates.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition can lead to higher prices for taxpayers as the government may not benefit from the full range of market-driven cost reductions that robust competition typically provides.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel and facilities, who receive enhanced security. The services delivered include security guards and patrol services, crucial for maintaining order and safety. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florida (FL), where the services were rendered. The contract supports the workforce of G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., providing employment for security personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for higher costs due to limited competition.
Lack of transparency in the procurement process for this specific BPA call.
Risk of vendor lock-in if this limited competition approach is repeated.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed price provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded under a BPA, potentially leveraging pre-negotiated terms.
Service delivery is critical for border protection operations.

Sector Analysis

The security services sector is a significant component of federal contracting, encompassing a wide range of protective and monitoring functions. This contract falls under the 'Security Guards and Patrol Services' NAICS code (561612). Federal spending in this sector is driven by the need to protect government assets, personnel, and critical infrastructure across various agencies. Benchmarking this $73 million contract would require comparing it to other large-scale security service contracts awarded by DHS or similar agencies, considering the specific scope of services and geographic locations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This means that large businesses like G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. were the primary focus for this procurement. Consequently, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. The absence of set-asides in this instance means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in providing these specific security guard services were likely limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Homeland Security's contracting and program management offices. As a BPA Call, it leverages an existing framework, implying some level of pre-established oversight. Accountability measures would be tied to the firm fixed price contract terms and performance standards. Transparency is a concern given the limited competition; further details on the justification for the procurement approach and performance metrics would be needed for a full assessment.

Related Government Programs

Department of Homeland Security Contracts
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Contracts
Security Services Contracts
Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs)

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Lack of Detailed Performance Metrics Provided

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $73.2 million to G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC.. TRANSPORTATION AND GUARD SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Customs and Border Protection).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $73.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-08-30. End: 2011-08-29.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract without full and open competition?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' and awarded as a 'BPA CALL'. While BPA calls can streamline procurement by utilizing pre-negotiated terms and conditions established under a parent BPA, the specific justification for not conducting a broader competition for this particular call is not detailed. Agencies often use limited competition under BPAs when specific vendors are already vetted, or when the need is urgent and falls within the scope of an existing agreement. However, without further documentation, it's difficult to ascertain if this approach maximized value for taxpayers or if alternative, more competitive methods could have been employed for this significant expenditure.

How does the $73.2 million expenditure compare to historical spending on similar security guard services by CBP?

To compare this $73.2 million expenditure to historical spending, one would need access to CBP's historical contract databases. This single contract represents a substantial investment for one year of security guard services. Analyzing past awards for similar services (NAICS 561612) in Florida or nationally by CBP would reveal trends in contract values, durations, and competition levels. If historical spending shows a pattern of large, limited-competition contracts for these services, it might indicate a systemic approach. Conversely, if this is an outlier, it warrants closer examination of the specific circumstances surrounding this award. Without that historical context, it's challenging to definitively state if this amount is typical or excessive.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and service level agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this contract. Typically, for security guard services, KPIs might include response times to incidents, adherence to post orders, incident reporting accuracy, personnel punctuality, and overall effectiveness in preventing unauthorized access or maintaining security. SLAs would define the expected level of service, such as the number of guards required per post, hours of coverage, and specific security protocols to be followed. The firm fixed price nature of the contract suggests that performance standards would be clearly defined to ensure the contractor meets the government's security requirements within the agreed-upon budget.

What is the track record of G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with DHS?

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. is a large, established provider of security services and has a significant history of contracting with the U.S. federal government, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Analyzing their broader federal contract portfolio would reveal their performance across various agencies and contract types. For DHS specifically, reviewing past awards to G4S would indicate their experience with similar security guard services, their pricing structures on previous contracts, and any documented performance issues or commendations. A comprehensive review would involve examining contract databases for past performance evaluations, any disputes, or contract terminations to assess their reliability and value proposition.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed price contract for security guard services?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for security guard services offers cost certainty to the government, as the price is set regardless of the contractor's actual costs. However, risks can arise if the scope of work is not precisely defined, leading to potential disputes or change orders. If the FFP is set too high, the government may overpay. Conversely, if set too low, the contractor might cut corners on service quality or personnel to maintain profitability, potentially compromising security. The limited competition for this contract exacerbates the risk that the FFP may not reflect the most competitive market rate, potentially leading to suboptimal value for the taxpayer.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Guards and Patrol Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: G4S PLC (UEI: 737341631)

Address: 4200 WACKENHUT DR STE 100, PALM BEACH GARDENS, FL, 33410

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $73,245,592

Exercised Options: $73,245,592

Current Obligation: $73,245,592

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSBP1006A01327

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline