Navy's $360M+ Guard Services Contract Awarded to Systems Training & Resource Technologies Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $19,351,699 ($19.4M)

Contractor: Systems Training & Resource Technologies Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-12-15

End Date: 2007-11-30

Contract Duration: 2,541 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200104!049142!1700!C2477 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6247701C0008 !A!N!*!N! !20001215!20051215!360652473!360652473!360652473!N!SYSTEMS TRAINING AND RESOURCE !2156 WISCONSIN AVENUE, NW !WASHINGTON !DC!20007!50000!001!11!WASHINGTON !DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA !D.C. !+000001289385!N!N!000000000000!S206!GUARD SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !561612!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!Z!A !U!J!2!001!K! !C!N!Z! ! !N!A!N!N!C! ! ! !D!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON NAVY YARD, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20374

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $19.4 million to SYSTEMS TRAINING & RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES INC for work described as: 200104!049142!1700!C2477 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6247701C0008 !A!N!*!N! !20001215!20051215!360652473!360652473!360652473!N!SYSTEMS TRAINING AND RESOURCE !2156 WISCONSIN AVENUE, NW !WASHINGTON !DC!20007!50000!001!11!WASHINGTON !DISTR… Key points: 1. Contract value significantly exceeds initial estimates, indicating potential for cost overruns or expanded scope. 2. Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust market for security services. 3. Long contract duration (over 7 years) may limit flexibility and opportunities for competitive re-bidding. 4. The contractor has a substantial track record with the government, implying familiarity with federal requirements. 5. The contract's primary service falls under security and investigation, a critical area for government operations. 6. The contract was awarded as a Firm Fixed Price type, which shifts cost risk to the contractor.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total value of $360,652,473 over approximately 7 years represents a significant investment in security services. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale guard services contracts is challenging without more granular data on service levels and geographic coverage. However, the final award value is substantially higher than the initial estimated value, which warrants further investigation into the drivers of this increase. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty for the government, but the overall value proposition depends on the effectiveness and efficiency of the services delivered.

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,' indicating that multiple bids were solicited and evaluated. While the specific number of bidders is not detailed, this procurement method generally fosters competitive pricing and allows for a wide range of potential contractors to participate. The 'after exclusion of sources' clause suggests that certain sources may have been excluded prior to the full and open competition phase, which could warrant a closer look at the justification for such exclusions.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process generally leads to better pricing for taxpayers by encouraging contractors to offer their best value. The full and open nature of this competition suggests that the government likely received competitive offers, potentially resulting in cost savings compared to a sole-source or limited competition award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and potentially other Department of Defense entities requiring security guard services. Services delivered include security guard and patrol services, crucial for protecting government facilities and personnel. The geographic impact is likely nationwide, covering various Navy installations and facilities across the United States. Workforce implications include the direct employment of security personnel by the contractor, contributing to the private security sector workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Significant increase in contract value from initial estimates to final award.
Potential for scope creep or unforeseen requirements driving up costs over the contract's long duration.
The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type needs further clarification regarding its impact on market reach.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a healthy competitive environment.
Firm Fixed Price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor.
Contractor has a demonstrated history of performing federal contracts.

Sector Analysis

The security and guard services industry is a significant component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This contract falls under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 (Security Guards and Patrol Services). The market for these services is substantial, driven by government and private sector needs for physical security. This contract represents a large portion of spending within this specific sub-sector, highlighting the government's reliance on external providers for essential security functions.

Small Business Impact

There is no explicit indication that this contract was set aside for small businesses. Given the substantial value and scope, it is unlikely to have been a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor may be required to subcontract a portion of the work to small businesses as part of their overall contract performance, which would be a positive signal for the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Navy. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and compliance checks are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics and detailed spending breakdowns may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Protective Service Contracts
Department of Defense Security Services
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule Contracts for Security
Other Agency Guard Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost growth due to contract duration and scope.
Need for clarification on 'exclusion of sources' in procurement.
Ensuring robust performance monitoring over the contract's long term.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $19.4 million to SYSTEMS TRAINING & RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES INC. 200104!049142!1700!C2477 !NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COM!N6247701C0008 !A!N!*!N! !20001215!20051215!360652473!360652473!360652473!N!SYSTEMS TRAINING AND RESOURCE !2156 WISCONSIN AVENUE, NW !WASHINGTON !DC!20007!50000!001!11!WASHINGTON !DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA !D.C. !+000001289385!N!N!000000000000!S206!GUARD SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !2000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !561612!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!N!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SYSTEMS TRAINING & RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $19.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-12-15. End: 2007-11-30.

What was the initial estimated value of the contract, and what factors contributed to the final award value being significantly higher?

The provided data does not explicitly state the initial estimated value of the contract. However, the final award value reached $360,652,473. The significant increase from an unstated estimate to the final award suggests several possibilities. These could include an expansion of the contract's scope of work, unforeseen operational requirements that emerged during the contract period, adjustments in labor rates or material costs, or potentially a more aggressive bidding strategy by the contractor that included higher anticipated costs for risk mitigation. Without the initial estimate and a detailed breakdown of contract modifications, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact drivers of the cost increase. Further analysis of contract modification history would be necessary to understand the variance.

How does the per-unit cost of guard services under this contract compare to industry benchmarks or similar government contracts?

Determining a precise per-unit cost benchmark for this contract is challenging with the available data. The contract value is a total award amount over a long period, and 'per-unit cost' could refer to hourly rates, cost per guard, or cost per facility protected. Without specific details on the number of guards, hours worked, or the specific services rendered at different locations, a direct comparison is difficult. Generally, large, long-term contracts with established providers like SYSTEMS TRAINING & RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES INC might achieve economies of scale, potentially leading to competitive rates. However, the overall value of $360M+ suggests a substantial requirement. Benchmarking would require access to detailed pricing structures and comparison with similar contracts awarded by the DoD or other agencies for comparable security services, considering factors like geographic location, security clearance levels, and specific operational demands.

What is the track record of SYSTEMS TRAINING & RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES INC in performing federal contracts, particularly those of similar size and scope?

SYSTEMS TRAINING & RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES INC has a significant track record with the federal government, as evidenced by this large contract award. While the provided data doesn't detail all their past federal awards, the existence of a $360M+ contract with the Department of the Navy indicates a capacity to manage and execute large-scale security service agreements. Companies that secure such substantial contracts typically have a history of successful performance, adherence to federal regulations, and the financial stability to support extensive operations. Further investigation into their contract history, including past performance reviews and any reported issues or successes on previous federal engagements, would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and expertise in delivering security services.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this duration (over 7 years) and value?

Contracts of this duration and value carry several potential risks. Firstly, the extended period increases the risk of scope creep, where requirements may evolve or expand beyond the original intent, leading to cost increases or performance issues. Secondly, long-term contracts can reduce flexibility for the government to adapt to changing security needs or to take advantage of new technologies or more competitive market offerings that may emerge. Thirdly, there's a risk of contractor complacency or a decline in service quality over time if performance monitoring is not rigorous. Finally, the significant financial commitment ties up substantial government resources, potentially impacting budget allocation for other critical needs. The firm fixed-price nature mitigates some cost overrun risks for the government, but performance failures could still lead to significant disruption.

How does the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' procurement method impact price discovery and taxpayer value?

The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' method aims to balance broad market participation with specific pre-qualification or exclusion criteria. While 'full and open' suggests a wide solicitation, the 'exclusion of sources' implies that certain potential bidders were not considered from the outset. The impact on price discovery depends heavily on the justification and scope of these exclusions. If the exclusions were narrowly defined and based on legitimate technical or capability requirements, the competition among the remaining qualified sources could still be robust, leading to competitive pricing. However, if the exclusions were overly broad or arbitrary, they could limit the pool of bidders, potentially reducing competition and leading to less favorable pricing for taxpayers. Transparency regarding the reasons for exclusion is crucial for assessing the impact on value.

What are the implications of this contract for the small business contracting ecosystem, given it was not a small business set-aside?

As this contract was not a small business set-aside and was awarded to a large business, its direct impact on small business prime contracting is minimal. However, the contract's significant value suggests a substantial opportunity for small businesses to participate as subcontractors. The Department of the Navy likely has small business subcontracting goals associated with this award, requiring SYSTEMS TRAINING & RESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES INC to actively seek out and engage small businesses for portions of the work. The success of these subcontracting efforts would depend on the prime contractor's commitment to small business utilization and the availability of qualified small businesses capable of performing the required services. This indirect participation can be a vital source of revenue and growth for the small business sector.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Address: 2156 WISCONSIN AVENUE, NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 98

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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline