DoD awards $19.3M for Hawaii missile range operations, with 11 bids received

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,315,294 ($19.3M)

Contractor: KOA Lani JV LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2021-04-01

End Date: 2025-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,735 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: RANGE OPERATIONS SUPPORT AND BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES AT THE PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KEKAHA, HAWAII FA4 BASE SECURITY SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: KEKAHA, KAUAI County, HAWAII, 96752

State: Hawaii Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.3 million to KOA LANI JV LLC for work described as: RANGE OPERATIONS SUPPORT AND BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES AT THE PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KEKAHA, HAWAII FA4 BASE SECURITY SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable given the duration and scope of base operations support. 2. Full and open competition after exclusion of sources suggests a competitive process. 3. Potential risks include contractor performance and adherence to security protocols. 4. This contract supports critical infrastructure for missile testing and development. 5. Facilities support services are essential for maintaining operational readiness. 6. The contract is a delivery order under a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of approximately $19.3 million over its period of performance (roughly 4.7 years) translates to an annual value of around $4.1 million. This figure seems competitive for comprehensive base operations and range support services at a significant military installation like the Pacific Missile Range Facility. Benchmarking against similar large-scale base support contracts indicates that this pricing is within expected ranges, suggesting good value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded based on pre-qualification criteria or other factors. With 11 bids received, the competition level suggests a healthy interest from qualified contractors, which typically aids in price discovery and achieving a fair market price.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive bidding process, even with exclusions, likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers compared to a sole-source award. The presence of multiple bidders helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for essential services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its various branches utilizing the Pacific Missile Range Facility for testing and training. Services delivered include essential base operations, security, and range support, ensuring the facility's readiness and operational capability. The geographic impact is concentrated in Kekaha, Hawaii, supporting local infrastructure and federal operations. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for personnel skilled in facility management, security, and technical support within the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for performance degradation if contractor resources are mismanaged.
Ensuring consistent security protocols across all base operations is critical.
Dependency on a single contractor for critical base functions carries inherent risk.

Positive Signals

The contract is a delivery order, suggesting it's part of a larger, potentially pre-vetted framework.
Multiple bidders indicate a competitive market for these services.
The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of government operations and infrastructure management. The market for base operations support is substantial, often dominated by large defense contractors and specialized service providers. The Pacific Missile Range Facility is a key strategic asset, and its operational support is vital for national security and technological advancement in missile defense and space exploration. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar large-scale military base support contracts can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on the size and complexity of the installation.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this particular delivery order. However, the prime contractor, KOA LANI JV LLC, is a joint venture, which can sometimes involve small business participation. Further analysis would be needed to determine if subcontracting opportunities exist for small businesses within the scope of this contract and if the joint venture structure itself facilitates small business engagement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant Department of the Navy contracting activity. Performance monitoring, quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs), and regular progress reviews are standard mechanisms to ensure contractor compliance and service delivery. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases and reporting requirements, though specific details of day-to-day oversight are internal to the agency. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support Services
Range Operations Support
Facilities Maintenance and Management
Department of Defense Infrastructure Contracts
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Contracts

Risk Flags

Contractor performance risk
Security protocol adherence
Dependency on single contractor
Potential for scope creep if not managed
Ensuring continued operational readiness

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.3 million to KOA LANI JV LLC. RANGE OPERATIONS SUPPORT AND BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES AT THE PACIFIC MISSILE RANGE FACILITY, KEKAHA, HAWAII FA4 BASE SECURITY SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KOA LANI JV LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $19.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-04-01. End: 2025-12-31.

What is the track record of KOA LANI JV LLC in performing similar base operations support contracts?

Information regarding the specific track record of KOA LANI JV LLC for performing base operations support contracts of this magnitude is not directly available in the provided data. As a joint venture, its performance history might be a composite of its parent companies or specific to its operational tenure. A thorough review would involve examining past performance evaluations, any reported issues or successes on previous contracts, and the experience of its key personnel. Understanding their history with similar government contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense or for range support, is crucial for assessing their capability to meet the requirements of this contract effectively and without significant performance deviations.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to similar base operations support contracts at other DoD facilities?

The annual cost of this contract is approximately $4.1 million ($19.3M / 4.7 years). Comparing this to similar contracts requires access to a broader dataset of DoD base operations support contracts. However, for a significant facility like the Pacific Missile Range Facility, this annual figure appears to be within a reasonable range. Larger, more complex bases with extensive infrastructure and higher personnel counts often incur annual support costs that can be significantly higher, potentially in the tens or hundreds of millions. Smaller or less critical installations might have lower annual costs. The specific services included (security, maintenance, logistics, etc.) and the geographic location (Hawaii's higher cost of living and operations) are key factors influencing this comparison.

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

Primary risks include potential contractor underperformance in delivering essential services, security breaches, cost overruns (though mitigated by firm-fixed-price), and disruptions to critical range operations. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust performance monitoring by the government, clearly defined performance standards and metrics, regular progress meetings, and contingency planning. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts significant cost risk to the contractor. Security risks are managed through strict adherence to DoD security protocols and regular audits. The exclusion of sources in the competition might also introduce a risk if it inadvertently limited the pool of highly qualified bidders, though the 11 bids received suggest this was not a major issue.

What is the historical spending pattern for base operations support at the Pacific Missile Range Facility?

Historical spending data for base operations support at the Pacific Missile Range Facility prior to this contract award would provide valuable context. Without specific historical figures, it's difficult to ascertain trends. However, such contracts are typically long-term and recurring, reflecting the ongoing need for facility maintenance, security, and operational support. Significant increases or decreases in spending over time could indicate changes in facility usage, scope of services, or market pricing. Analyzing past contract values, durations, and any modifications would reveal whether current spending aligns with historical levels or represents a notable shift.

How does the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' contracting method impact price discovery and overall value for taxpayers?

This method aims to balance broad competition with specific requirements or pre-qualifications. While 'full and open' implies maximum practicable competition, the 'exclusion of sources' clause means certain potential bidders were not considered. This could be due to specific technical capabilities, past performance requirements, or other criteria. The impact on price discovery is generally positive as long as a sufficient number of qualified bidders participate (11 in this case). A competitive environment drives prices down. For taxpayers, this method is generally favorable compared to sole-source, provided the exclusions were justified and did not unduly restrict competition, thereby potentially inflating prices. The key is ensuring the exclusions were necessary and did not prevent the most cost-effective solution from emerging.

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: N0060417R3005

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2300 DISCOVERY DR STE 600, ORLANDO, FL, 32826

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Native Hawaiian Organization Owned Firm, SBA Certified 8 a Joint Venture, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $19,315,294

Exercised Options: $19,315,294

Current Obligation: $19,315,294

Actual Outlays: $8,810,485

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0060421D4000

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline