State Department spent $30.6M on site security upgrades, a sole-source contract awarded to ASRC Constructors

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,573,246 ($30.6M)

Contractor: Asrc Constructors, Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2006-01-25

End Date: 2006-09-30

Contract Duration: 248 days

Daily Burn Rate: $123.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Construction

Official Description: SECURITY UPGRADE SERVICES ON PROJECT SITE

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $30.6 million to ASRC CONSTRUCTORS, INC for work described as: SECURITY UPGRADE SERVICES ON PROJECT SITE Key points: 1. The contract's value of $30.6 million for site security upgrades raises questions about cost-effectiveness given the sole-source nature. 2. Limited competition for this contract suggests potential for higher pricing than in a more open bidding environment. 3. The fixed-firm price contract type offers cost certainty but may not reflect the most competitive market rates. 4. Awarded in 2006, the contract's relevance to current security needs and pricing benchmarks requires further investigation. 5. The project's focus on physical site security aligns with critical infrastructure protection but lacks specific performance metrics. 6. This contract falls within the broader construction sector, specifically commercial and institutional building construction.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $30.6 million contract is challenging due to its sole-source nature and 2006 award date. Without comparable sole-source contracts for similar security upgrades or a competitive bidding process, it's difficult to definitively assess if the price represented good value for money. The firm-fixed-price structure provided cost certainty to the government, but the absence of competition means there was no market pressure to drive down costs. Further analysis would require access to detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons with similar projects awarded under competitive solicitations around the same period.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one contractor, ASRC Constructors, Inc., was solicited. The justification for a sole-source award typically involves unique capabilities, urgent needs, or a lack of other responsible sources. The absence of a competitive bidding process means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery and innovation that typically arises from multiple bidders vying for a contract. This can lead to higher costs and potentially less optimal solutions compared to a fully competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards limit taxpayer value by bypassing competitive pressures that normally drive down prices. This can result in overspending on government procurements.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Department of State, which received enhanced security for its project site. The services delivered included security upgrades, contributing to the physical safety and operational integrity of the site. The geographic impact is localized to the specific project site managed by the Department of State. Workforce implications would involve construction labor and potentially specialized security personnel employed by ASRC Constructors, Inc.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potential value for taxpayers.
Awarded in 2006, current market relevance and pricing benchmarks are questionable.
Lack of transparency regarding the justification for sole-source procurement.
No indication of small business subcontracting opportunities.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Contract addresses critical security upgrade needs for a government facility.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the Commercial and Institutional Building Construction sector. The market for construction services, particularly for specialized security upgrades, can be competitive, but sole-source awards bypass this. The total federal spending on construction services is substantial, and contracts like this represent a portion of that expenditure. Benchmarking would typically involve comparing the cost per square foot or per unit of security enhancement against similar projects, but the sole-source nature complicates this.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides, nor is there information suggesting subcontracting to small businesses. As a sole-source award, the opportunities for small businesses to participate were likely limited unless ASRC Constructors, Inc. voluntarily subcontracted. This contract does not appear to have been structured to specifically benefit the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve contract administration by the Department of State's contracting officers. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and the age of the award. Without specific Inspector General reports or audits related to this particular contract, a detailed assessment of accountability measures is not possible. The firm-fixed-price contract type offers some level of financial oversight.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Facilities Management
Federal Building Security Programs
Construction Services Contracts
Sole Source Procurements

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Dated award (2006)
Lack of detailed performance metrics
Limited competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $30.6 million to ASRC CONSTRUCTORS, INC. SECURITY UPGRADE SERVICES ON PROJECT SITE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASRC CONSTRUCTORS, INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $30.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-01-25. End: 2006-09-30.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to ASRC Constructors, Inc.?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source procurements are justified under circumstances such as urgent and compelling needs, unique capabilities of a single contractor, or when only one responsible source exists. For this contract, awarded in 2006, the Department of State would have had to document why competition was not feasible or advantageous. Without access to the contract file or associated justifications, the precise reasons remain unknown. This lack of transparency is a common concern with sole-source awards, as it can obscure potential inefficiencies or lack of effort to find competitive solutions.

How does the $30.6 million cost compare to similar security upgrade projects awarded competitively around 2006?

Direct comparison of this $30.6 million sole-source contract to competitively awarded projects is difficult without more specific details on the scope of 'security upgrades.' Projects vary significantly in scale, complexity, and the specific security measures implemented (e.g., physical barriers, surveillance systems, access control). However, as a sole-source award, it is inherently less likely to have achieved the cost efficiencies that a competitive bidding process typically yields. To perform a robust comparison, one would need to identify comparable projects, analyze their scope, contract type, and award amounts, and adjust for inflation and market conditions prevalent in 2006. The absence of competition suggests this price may be higher than what could have been achieved through a bidding process.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or deliverables for this security upgrade contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'SECURITY UPGRADE SERVICES ON PROJECT SITE' with a firm-fixed price and a duration of 248 days. However, specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or detailed deliverables are not listed. Typically, such contracts would outline specific security enhancements, installation standards, testing protocols, and completion criteria. The absence of explicit KPIs in the summary data makes it challenging to assess the contractor's performance objectively or to determine if the upgrades met the Department of State's security objectives effectively. Further review of the contract's statement of work would be necessary to identify these details.

What is the track record of ASRC Constructors, Inc. with the Department of State or similar federal agencies for construction and security projects?

The data shows ASRC Constructors, Inc. was awarded this $30.6 million contract by the Department of State in 2006. To assess their track record, a broader search of federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) would be necessary to identify all contracts awarded to ASRC Constructors, Inc. by the Department of State and other agencies. This would reveal the volume and value of their federal work, the types of services provided (e.g., construction, security, facilities maintenance), and potentially contract performance ratings or past performance reviews. Without this broader context, it's difficult to gauge their overall reliability and expertise in delivering similar projects.

Given the 2006 award date, what is the potential for cost overruns or scope creep in this contract?

The contract was awarded with a firm-fixed price (FFP) of $30.6 million, which is designed to limit the government's exposure to cost overruns. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes the risk of cost increases. However, scope creep—where the government requests additional work beyond the original contract scope—can still lead to increased costs, typically through contract modifications or change orders, which would also be at a fixed price. Since the contract was awarded in 2006 and its duration was 248 days, it is likely completed. The primary risk related to the award date is the potential obsolescence of the security upgrades themselves and the difficulty in assessing the value proposition against current standards and pricing.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Construction › Nonresidential Building Construction › Commercial and Institutional Building Construction

Product/Service Code: RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT › DEFENSE (OTHER) R&D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3900 C STREET, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $30,573,246

Exercised Options: $30,573,246

Current Obligation: $30,573,246

Timeline