State Department's $9.86M alarm system contract awarded to E M B Security LLC shows fair value with 3 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,862,784 ($9.9M)

Contractor: E M B Security LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2006-04-12

End Date: 2010-07-05

Contract Duration: 1,545 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.4K/day

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: INSTALL OF ALARM & SIGNAL SYSTEM

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $9.9 million to E M B SECURITY LLC for work described as: INSTALL OF ALARM & SIGNAL SYSTEM Key points: 1. The contract appears to represent fair value, given the competitive bidding process. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a healthy market for security system services. 3. Risk indicators are low, with a firm fixed-price contract type and clear performance period. 4. Performance context suggests a need for reliable security infrastructure within the State Department. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader security systems services industry.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of approximately $9.86 million for the installation of an alarm and signal system seems reasonable within the context of government security contracts. While a direct per-unit cost comparison is not available without more detailed service specifications, the firm fixed-price nature of the award suggests that the contractor assumed the risk for cost overruns. The presence of three bidders indicates a degree of market competition that typically helps to ensure a fair price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was competed with three bidders, suggesting a moderate level of competition. While not a full and open competition, the participation of multiple vendors indicates that the opportunity was accessible to a reasonable number of qualified firms. This level of competition is generally sufficient to drive competitive pricing and ensure that the government receives a reasonable offer, though a higher number of bidders could potentially lead to even more aggressive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The competition level means taxpayers likely benefited from a price that reflects at least some market pressure, avoiding the potential overpayment associated with sole-source awards.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are personnel and assets protected by the new alarm and signal system within State Department facilities. The service delivered is the installation and maintenance of critical security infrastructure. The geographic impact is localized to the facilities managed by the Department of State where the system is installed. Workforce implications include potential employment for security technicians and installers during the contract period.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial system requirements were not fully defined.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical security system maintenance could pose a risk if performance issues arise.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type limits financial risk for the government.
Clear performance period (April 2006 - July 2010) provides defined deliverables and timelines.
Award to a single entity (E M B SECURITY LLC) allows for focused accountability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Security Systems Services sector, specifically for alarm and signal systems. This industry is characterized by specialized technology and installation expertise. The market size for government security contracts is substantial, driven by the need for protection of federal facilities and personnel. This specific award represents a portion of the overall spending on security infrastructure by federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not available in the provided data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem cannot be assessed from this data alone.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program managers within the Department of State. Accountability is established through the firm fixed-price contract terms and performance requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated by federal procurement data systems, though specific details of ongoing oversight are not provided.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Security Infrastructure Contracts
Federal Alarm System Procurement
Government Security Services

Risk Flags

Contract Duration
Limited Competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $9.9 million to E M B SECURITY LLC. INSTALL OF ALARM & SIGNAL SYSTEM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is E M B SECURITY LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-04-12. End: 2010-07-05.

What was the specific scope of work for the alarm and signal system installation?

The provided data indicates the contract was for the 'INSTALL OF ALARM & SIGNAL SYSTEM'. However, the specific details of the scope of work, such as the type of alarms, sensors, monitoring capabilities, integration with existing systems, and the number of locations or facilities covered, are not detailed in the summary data. A comprehensive understanding of the scope would require reviewing the original contract statement of work (SOW) to assess the complexity and requirements of the installation.

How does the awarded amount of $9.86 million compare to similar alarm system installations by the State Department or other federal agencies?

Without access to a database of comparable federal contracts for alarm and signal system installations, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, $9.86 million for a multi-year installation project (April 2006 - July 2010) is a significant sum, suggesting a large-scale deployment or a highly complex system. The presence of three bidders indicates that the market could support such a contract value, but a detailed comparison would require analyzing contracts with similar scope, duration, and security requirements across different agencies.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) for E M B SECURITY LLC under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) that E M B SECURITY LLC was required to meet. Typically, for security system installations, KPIs would relate to system functionality, reliability, response times for alerts, successful integration, adherence to installation timelines, and compliance with security standards. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract implies that meeting the defined scope and specifications was paramount, with penalties or remedies for non-performance likely outlined in the contract's terms and conditions.

What is the track record of E M B SECURITY LLC in performing government contracts, particularly for security systems?

The provided data identifies E M B SECURITY LLC as the contractor but does not offer details on their past performance history, including previous contracts, client satisfaction, or any record of disputes or awards. To assess their track record, one would need to consult federal procurement databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) for a more comprehensive view of their performance on prior government engagements.

Were there any significant challenges or issues encountered during the performance of this contract?

The summary data does not indicate any specific challenges or issues encountered during the performance of this contract. Contracts of this nature, especially those involving physical installations and technology, can sometimes face delays due to site access, unforeseen technical complexities, or coordination issues. However, without access to contract performance reports or official documentation, it's impossible to determine if any significant problems arose during its execution.

How did the initial estimated cost compare to the final awarded amount for this contract?

The provided data only shows the final awarded amount ($9,862,784.18) and does not include information about the initial estimated cost or any pre-award negotiation details. Therefore, a comparison between the estimated and awarded amounts cannot be made based on this data alone. Understanding this comparison would require access to the contract's solicitation documents and negotiation records.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Systems Services (except Locksmiths)

Product/Service Code: INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT › INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT

Contractor Details

Address: 5885 TRINITY PKWY STE 100, CENTREVILLE, VA, 90

Business Categories: Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,862,784

Exercised Options: $9,862,784

Current Obligation: $9,862,784

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SALMEC04D0006

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline