State Department's $21.7M Facilities Support Services contract with DynCorp International shows long duration and firm fixed price

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,766,341 ($21.8M)

Contractor: Dyncorp International LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2008-03-12

End Date: 2016-07-26

Contract Duration: 3,058 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.1K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OBLIGATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $21.8 million to DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC for work described as: OBLIGATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS Key points: 1. The contract's firm fixed price structure suggests predictable costs for the government. 2. A long performance period of over 8 years indicates a sustained need for these services. 3. The competitive delivery order nature implies some level of market vetting, though specific details are limited. 4. Facilities support services are critical for maintaining operational readiness of government facilities. 5. The absence of small business set-aside suggests this was not specifically targeted for smaller enterprises. 6. The contract's value, while significant, needs to be benchmarked against similar large-scale facilities management contracts.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The firm fixed price (FFP) contract type is generally favorable for cost control, as it shifts risk to the contractor. However, without detailed breakdowns of the services provided and their associated costs, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facilities support contracts awarded by the State Department or other agencies would be necessary to determine if the pricing is competitive. The long duration of the contract (over 8 years) could indicate either consistent value or potential for price creep if not managed effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

This contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, indicating that multiple vendors likely had an opportunity to bid. The specific number of bidders and the details of the competition are not provided in the summary data. A competitive award generally suggests that the government sought to obtain the best value through market forces, potentially leading to more favorable pricing and service terms compared to a sole-source award.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process helps ensure that taxpayer funds are used efficiently by fostering price discovery and encouraging contractors to offer their best terms.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of State personnel and operations, who rely on well-maintained facilities. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, custodial, and potentially security services for government buildings. The geographic impact is tied to the specific facilities managed by DynCorp International under this contract, likely within the US or at diplomatic posts. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for individuals in facilities management and support roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess service quality over the contract's long duration.
Potential for contractor lock-in due to the extended performance period, which could limit future competition.
Firm Fixed Price contracts can sometimes disincentivize contractors from innovating or exceeding basic requirements if not carefully managed.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Competitive award process suggests an effort to secure market-based pricing.
Long contract duration indicates a stable, ongoing requirement for essential support services.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services fall under the broader commercial and professional services sector. This sector is characterized by a wide range of providers, from large integrated facility management companies to specialized service firms. Government contracts in this area are substantial, reflecting the extensive real estate holdings and operational needs of federal agencies. Benchmarking would involve comparing this contract's value and scope to other large-scale facilities management contracts awarded to companies like CBRE, JLL, or other major players in the industry.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the scale and nature of the required facilities support services were likely deemed more suitable for larger, established contractors. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and program managers within the Department of State. Performance reviews, site inspections, and invoice audits are standard mechanisms to ensure contractor compliance. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS-NG (now SAM.gov), though detailed operational reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Facilities Management Contracts
Federal Facilities Support Services
DynCorp International Government Contracts
Large Scale Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may indicate potential for complacency or reduced innovation.
Lack of specific performance metrics hinders objective assessment of value.
Absence of small business participation requires justification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $21.8 million to DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC. OBLIGATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-03-12. End: 2016-07-26.

What specific facilities and locations were covered under this contract, and how did their maintenance needs evolve over the 8-year period?

The provided data does not specify the exact facilities or geographic locations covered by this $21.7 million contract awarded to DynCorp International by the Department of State. Facilities support services can encompass a wide range of activities, including building operations, maintenance, repair, custodial services, groundskeeping, and potentially security. Over an eight-year period (2008-2016), the needs of these facilities could have evolved due to factors such as aging infrastructure, changes in operational requirements, security upgrades, or shifts in diplomatic missions. Without detailed statements of work and performance reports, it's impossible to ascertain the specific evolution of services and associated costs.

How did DynCorp International's performance on this contract compare to industry benchmarks for facilities support services during the 2008-2016 period?

Assessing DynCorp International's performance against industry benchmarks requires access to specific performance metrics and quality data that are not included in the provided summary. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for facilities support services often include response times for maintenance requests, completion rates for preventive maintenance, energy efficiency targets, cleanliness scores, and customer satisfaction ratings. A firm fixed-price contract, while offering cost certainty, can sometimes lead to a focus on meeting minimum requirements rather than exceeding them. To benchmark, one would need to compare DynCorp's actual delivery against established industry standards for similar types of facilities (e.g., office buildings, diplomatic compounds) and service scopes during that timeframe.

What was the total cost per square foot or per facility managed under this contract, and how does it compare to similar government or commercial contracts?

The provided data offers a total contract value of $21.7 million over approximately 8 years but lacks the granularity to calculate a meaningful cost per square foot or per facility. To perform such a comparison, we would need the total square footage of the facilities managed, the number of facilities, and a breakdown of the services included in the firm fixed price. Commercial benchmarks for facilities management vary significantly based on building type (e.g., Class A office, industrial, government-specific), location, and the scope of services (e.g., janitorial only vs. full-service operations including MEP, security, and landscaping). Without these details, any comparison would be speculative.

Were there any significant contract modifications, overruns, or underruns associated with this delivery order during its performance period?

The provided data indicates the initial award details and the contract's start and end dates (March 12, 2008, to July 26, 2016), spanning a duration of 3058 days. It does not include information on contract modifications, supplemental funding, or adjustments to the original award amount. While the contract was awarded as a 'COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER' with a total obligation of $21,766,340.69, the absence of modification data means we cannot determine if the final cost deviated from the initial obligation or if the scope of work was significantly altered post-award. Further investigation into contract modification history would be required.

What was the rationale for awarding this contract as a competitive delivery order rather than a broader indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a different contract type?

Awarding this contract as a 'COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER' suggests that the Department of State had a defined need for facilities support services at specific locations or for a particular project, and they sought competitive bids for that defined scope. Delivery orders are typically issued under a larger contract vehicle (like an IDIQ or a requirements contract) or can sometimes stand alone if the scope is well-defined and the competition is conducted specifically for that order. The rationale likely centered on obtaining competitive pricing for a specific, anticipated set of services over a defined period. Choosing a firm fixed-price (FFP) type for the delivery order indicates a desire for cost certainty, shifting performance risk to the contractor.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support 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: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Cerberus Capital Management, L.P. (UEI: 014784388)

Address: 6500 WEST FREEWAY, SUITE 600, FORT WORTH, TX, 76116

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,294,043

Exercised Options: $22,294,043

Current Obligation: $21,766,341

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SLMAQM04C0030

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline