State Dept. Spends $24.3M on Overseas Security Guards via Non-Competed Contract

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,313,841 ($24.3M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2015-01-01

End Date: 2017-06-30

Contract Duration: 911 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.7K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $24.3 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Significant spending on security services highlights critical operational needs. 2. Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and limited market engagement. 3. The contract's duration and cost structure warrant scrutiny for efficiency. 4. Focus on domestic awardees, though undisclosed, suggests a reliance on established providers.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $24.3 million over 911 days, awarded without competition, makes a direct pricing assessment difficult. Without benchmarks from competitive bids, it's hard to determine if the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure yielded optimal value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

The contract was not competed, indicating a sole-source or limited competition award. This significantly restricts price discovery and may lead to higher costs than a competitive process would achieve.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayer funds may have been used inefficiently due to the absence of competitive pressure to secure the best possible price for security services.

Public Impact

Ensures security for personnel and assets in potentially high-risk overseas locations. Supports diplomatic missions and government operations abroad. The lack of transparency in awardee selection raises public trust concerns.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition
Undisclosed awardee
Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type

Positive Signals

Provides essential security services
Supports critical government functions abroad

Sector Analysis

Security services, particularly for overseas operations, are crucial for government functions but can be costly. Benchmarks for similar contracts are difficult to establish without competitive data, especially for specialized or high-risk environments.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate whether small businesses were involved in this contract, either as prime contractors or subcontractors. The lack of competition and undisclosed awardee makes assessing small business participation impossible.

Oversight & Accountability

The non-competed nature of this significant contract warrants review by oversight bodies to ensure proper justification and adherence to procurement regulations. Transparency regarding the awardee and the rationale for sole-sourcing is crucial.

Related Government Programs

Security Guards and Patrol Services
Department of State Contracting
Department of State Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Potential for inflated costs
Limited transparency
Undisclosed awardee details
Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $24.3 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $24.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-01-01. End: 2017-06-30.

What was the specific justification for not competing this contract, and were alternative solutions considered?

The provided data does not specify the justification for not competing the contract. Typically, non-competitive awards require documented reasons such as urgent and compelling needs, unique capabilities, or national security imperatives. Without this information, it's impossible to assess if the government received the best value or if alternative, more competitive approaches were overlooked.

How does the fixed fee component of this Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract compare to industry standards for similar security services?

Assessing the fixed fee's reasonableness is challenging without knowing the total estimated cost and the specific services rendered. Industry standards vary widely based on location, threat level, and scope of work. A competitive process would typically yield a fee reflective of market rates and acceptable risk for both parties.

What measures were in place to ensure cost control and prevent overruns given the Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure and lack of competition?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee structure inherently shifts some cost risk to the government. Without competition, the government relies heavily on robust contract surveillance, clear performance metrics, and strong negotiation to manage costs. The absence of competitive pressure makes diligent oversight even more critical to ensure efficient use of taxpayer funds.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $30,918,219

Exercised Options: $30,918,219

Current Obligation: $24,313,841

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline