DHS awarded $46.7M for housing management services, with 7 bidders competing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $46,703,715 ($46.7M)

Contractor: AOC - JV

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2006-09-19

End Date: 2012-09-25

Contract Duration: 2,198 days

Daily Burn Rate: $21.2K/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: HOUSING MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: BRUNSWICK, GLYNN County, GEORGIA, 31524

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $46.7 million to AOC - JV for work described as: HOUSING MANAGEMENT SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in facilities support services. 2. A full and open competition suggests a robust market for these services. 3. The duration of the contract indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. The firm-fixed-price structure shifts cost risk to the contractor. 5. The contract was awarded by the Department of Homeland Security, supporting federal law enforcement training. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 points to facilities support services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $46.7 million over its period of performance appears reasonable for comprehensive housing management services supporting a federal training center. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facilities management contracts would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price contract type suggests that the pricing was determined upfront and is intended to cover all costs associated with the services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was broad, specific sources were initially excluded before a full and open process was initiated. With 7 bidders, the competition level appears healthy, suggesting that multiple firms were interested and capable of providing the required services. This level of competition generally supports price discovery and can lead to more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process with multiple bidders helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by driving down costs and encouraging providers to offer the best value.

Public Impact

Federal law enforcement personnel undergoing training benefit from well-maintained and managed housing facilities. The services provided ensure a stable and functional living environment for trainees. The contract's geographic impact is primarily at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Georgia. The contract supports jobs within the facilities management and support services sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly given the long duration.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical housing infrastructure could pose a risk if performance falters.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
A competitive award process suggests a market capable of meeting the government's needs.
The long contract duration indicates a stable and ongoing requirement, allowing for contractor investment in service quality.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. The market for these services is substantial, driven by government agencies and private sector organizations requiring comprehensive facility management. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large government contracts for similar services at federal installations or training centers.

Small Business Impact

The contract details do not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions, nor is there information on subcontracting plans. The award to 'AOC - JV' suggests a joint venture, which could potentially involve small businesses, but this is not explicitly stated. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program office within the Department of Homeland Security. Performance monitoring, quality assurance surveillance plans, and regular reviews are standard mechanisms to ensure contractor compliance and service delivery. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements.

Related Government Programs

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Operations
Department of Homeland Security Facilities Management
Government Housing Services Contracts
Facilities Support Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for contractor performance issues impacting trainee living conditions.
Risk of cost overruns if not managed within the firm-fixed-price structure.
Dependence on a single entity for critical housing infrastructure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $46.7 million to AOC - JV. HOUSING MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AOC - JV.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Federal Law Enforcement Training Center).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $46.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-19. End: 2012-09-25.

What is the track record of the contractor, AOC - JV, with federal contracts, particularly in facilities management?

Information on the specific track record of 'AOC - JV' is not detailed in the provided data. However, the award of a significant contract by the Department of Homeland Security suggests they met the qualifications and performance expectations set forth in the solicitation. To assess their track record thoroughly, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, any history of contract disputes or terminations, and their experience with similar scope and scale of services across other federal agencies. A review of the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or other contract databases would be necessary to identify previous awards and performance metrics.

How does the awarded price compare to market rates for similar housing management services?

The provided data does not include specific pricing details beyond the total contract value of $46.7 million. A direct comparison to market rates for similar housing management services would require detailed cost breakdowns, including labor, materials, and overhead, which are not available. Benchmarking would involve identifying comparable contracts for facilities management at other federal training centers or large government installations, analyzing their per-square-foot costs, per-resident costs, or service-specific rates. Without this granular data, a precise market rate comparison is not feasible, though the competitive nature of the award suggests the price was considered fair at the time of negotiation.

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

Key risks for this housing management services contract include potential performance deficiencies by the contractor, leading to substandard living conditions for trainees, and cost overruns if the firm-fixed-price structure is not adequately managed or if unforeseen issues arise. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust performance monitoring by the government, clear performance standards and metrics outlined in the contract, and regular communication channels. The firm-fixed-price nature shifts some financial risk to the contractor, incentivizing them to manage costs effectively. Additionally, the competitive award process helps mitigate the risk of selecting an unqualified vendor.

How effective has this contract been in ensuring adequate housing for federal law enforcement trainees?

The effectiveness of this contract in ensuring adequate housing cannot be determined solely from the award data. Effectiveness would be measured by trainee satisfaction, compliance with health and safety standards, maintenance responsiveness, and overall operational efficiency of the housing facilities. Ongoing performance evaluations, feedback mechanisms from trainees and staff, and site inspections conducted by the Department of Homeland Security would provide insights into the contract's effectiveness. The long duration suggests a sustained need and presumably satisfactory performance to date, but formal assessments are required for a definitive conclusion.

What are the historical spending patterns for housing management services at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center?

The provided data only details this specific contract awarded in 2006 and ending in 2012. To understand historical spending patterns, one would need to examine contract awards for housing management services at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) for periods preceding and following this contract. Analyzing the total obligated amounts, contract types, number of bidders, and duration of previous contracts would reveal trends in spending, contractor choices, and the evolution of service requirements over time. This broader historical context is crucial for understanding the significance of the $46.7 million award.

What is the potential impact of the 'Exclusion of Sources' clause on the overall competitiveness and cost?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause indicates that while the competition was ultimately broad, certain sources were initially excluded. The specific reasons for exclusion (e.g., national security, prior performance issues, or specific technical requirements) are not provided. If the excluded sources were significant market players, their absence could have theoretically reduced the overall pool of bidders, potentially impacting price competition. However, with 7 bidders participating, the competition appears robust enough to suggest that the exclusion did not unduly limit market participation or price discovery in this instance. The impact is contingent on the nature and number of the excluded entities.

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

Offers Received: 7

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10643 MILLS AVE, MONTCLAIR, CA, 35

Business Categories: Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $62,843,408

Exercised Options: $55,998,897

Current Obligation: $46,703,715

Timeline