NASA's $34.8M security contract with Paragon Systems Inc. saw 4 bids over 9 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $34,784,419 ($34.8M)
Contractor: Paragon Systems Inc
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2002-11-05
End Date: 2012-01-31
Contract Duration: 3,374 days
Daily Burn Rate: $10.3K/day
Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: SECURITY GUARD AND PATROL SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: STENNIS SPACE CENTER, HANCOCK County, MISSISSIPPI, 39529
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $34.8 million to PARAGON SYSTEMS INC for work described as: SECURITY GUARD AND PATROL SERVICES Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the long-term nature and competitive bidding. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a healthy level of interest from multiple bidders. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a long contract duration potentially increasing risk. 4. Performance context is a long-standing security service provision for NASA. 5. Sector positioning is within the security services industry, a common government need.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The total award of $34.8 million over approximately 9 years suggests an average annual spend of around $3.86 million. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale security contracts for federal agencies is challenging without more granular data on service levels and geographic coverage. However, the firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty for NASA. The number of bids received (4) suggests a reasonable level of competition that likely contributed to a fair price.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, indicating it was part of a larger procurement vehicle that allowed for full and open competition. Four bidders participated in this specific order, suggesting a reasonable level of market interest and competition for these security services. The presence of multiple bidders generally supports price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government.
Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of this award is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely resulted in a more efficient use of funds compared to a sole-source or limited competition scenario.
Public Impact
NASA facilities and personnel benefit from consistent security and patrol services. The contract ensures the protection of government assets and sensitive information. Services were primarily delivered in Mississippi, supporting local security workforce needs. The contract supported jobs within the security guard and patrol services sector.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Long contract duration (over 9 years) may lead to complacency or reduced vigilance.
- Firm-fixed-price contracts can be less flexible if service requirements change significantly.
- Reliance on a single contractor for critical security functions poses a potential single point of failure.
Positive Signals
- Competitive award process suggests a baseline level of quality and fair pricing.
- Long-term contract indicates a stable and potentially effective working relationship.
- The firm-fixed-price structure provides budget predictability for NASA.
Sector Analysis
The security guard and patrol services sector is a mature and essential component of government operations, ensuring the safety of personnel and assets. Federal spending in this area is consistent across various agencies. This contract fits within the broader category of facility support services, where competition is typically robust. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific security requirements, such as the number of personnel, hours of coverage, and specialized equipment needed.
Small Business Impact
Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans for this specific delivery order was not readily available in the provided data. However, given the nature of security services, there is often potential for small businesses to participate as subcontractors, particularly for specialized security functions or regional support. Further investigation into the contract's subcontracting goals would be needed to assess the full impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would fall under NASA's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract terms, including performance standards, reporting requirements, and potential penalties for non-compliance. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance reviews are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Federal Protective Service Contracts
- Department of Homeland Security Security Services
- General Services Administration Schedules for Security Services
- Defense Security Service Contracts
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration
- Potential for service degradation over time
- Reliance on fixed-price structure for evolving needs
Tags
security-services, nasa, mississippi, competitive-delivery-order, large-contract, firm-fixed-price, security-guards, patrol-services, full-and-open-competition, long-term-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $34.8 million to PARAGON SYSTEMS INC. SECURITY GUARD AND PATROL SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is PARAGON SYSTEMS INC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $34.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2002-11-05. End: 2012-01-31.
What was the specific scope of services provided under this contract?
The contract, NAICS code 561612, covered 'Security Guards and Patrol Services.' This typically includes providing uniformed personnel to guard against theft, unauthorized access, and other security breaches. Services likely encompassed physical security presence, access control, patrol of facilities, monitoring of security systems, and response to security incidents. The exact number of guards, hours of coverage, and specific locations within Mississippi would define the detailed scope, which is not fully detailed in the provided summary data.
How does the average annual spend of approximately $3.86 million compare to similar NASA security contracts?
Without specific details on the size and complexity of other NASA security contracts, a direct comparison is difficult. However, $3.86 million annually for security services at a federal agency is a substantial but not unusual figure, reflecting the need for continuous, round-the-clock protection of facilities and assets. Larger agencies or those with more extensive or sensitive installations might have higher annual security expenditures. The competitive nature of this award suggests the price was deemed reasonable relative to the market at the time of bidding.
What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate Paragon Systems Inc.'s performance?
Standard KPIs for security guard contracts often include response times to incidents, adherence to post orders, guard attendance and punctuality, incident reporting accuracy, and overall customer satisfaction surveys. While specific KPIs for this NASA contract are not detailed, agencies typically establish metrics to ensure the contractor meets the required security standards. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in contractual remedies, including financial penalties or termination.
Were there any notable performance issues or contract modifications during the contract's lifespan?
The provided data does not detail specific performance issues or contract modifications. However, a contract spanning over nine years (November 2002 to January 2012) is likely to have undergone some level of modification to adjust for changing security needs, inflation, or scope adjustments. Agencies typically document significant modifications, and a review of NASA's contract database or relevant federal procurement records would be necessary to identify any major changes or documented performance concerns.
What is the typical duration for federal security guard contracts of this magnitude?
Federal security guard contracts can vary significantly in duration, but multi-year contracts are common, often with option periods. Contracts of this magnitude (over $30 million) frequently have base periods of 1-5 years, with potential for multiple option years extending the total performance period to 10 years or more. The 9-year duration of this contract is on the longer side but not uncommon, especially for established service needs where stability is valued.
How does the number of bidders (4) impact the perceived value for money?
Receiving four bids for a competitive delivery order generally indicates a healthy level of competition. More bidders typically lead to greater price discovery and can drive down costs for the government. While four bidders is a solid number, the optimal number can vary by industry and contract complexity. For a contract of this size and duration, four bids suggest that the market was sufficiently engaged, supporting the notion of fair value for the money spent.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Guards and Patrol Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: SRS Critical Infrastructure Security LLC (UEI: 355790924)
Address: 14160 NEWBROOK DR STE. 210, CHANTILLY, VA, 90
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, HUBZone Firm, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $35,689,741
Exercised Options: $35,671,963
Current Obligation: $34,784,419
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: GS07F0418K
IDV Type: FSS
Timeline
Start Date: 2002-11-05
Current End Date: 2012-01-31
Potential End Date: 2012-01-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2012-12-12
More Contracts from Paragon Systems Inc
- DOJ Security Guard Services — $191.0M (Department of Justice)
- Armed Guard Services — $152.6M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- C2F Security Services — $63.6M (Department of Defense)
- FOR Other Functions — $58.5M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Armed Protective Security Officer (PSO) Services for LOS Angeles, California and Surrounding Areas Task Order Award for Option Year 3 — $55.2M (Department of Homeland Security)
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →