State Department's $21.1M Facilities Support Services Contract Awarded Without Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,134,918 ($21.1M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2015-01-01

End Date: 2016-02-29

Contract Duration: 424 days

Daily Burn Rate: $49.8K/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 $21.1 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies and market competition. 2. The duration of 424 days for a facilities support service contract warrants scrutiny regarding scope and necessity. 3. The absence of disclosed domestic awardees makes it difficult to assess the contractor's track record and capabilities. 4. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type can incentivize cost overruns if not closely monitored. 5. Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging due to the lack of competitive bids and undisclosed awardee. 6. The contract's focus on facilities support services suggests a need for robust performance metrics and oversight.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The CPFF contract type, while offering flexibility, can lead to higher costs if not managed diligently. The total value of over $21 million for a 424-day period for facilities support services requires careful examination to ensure it aligns with market rates and the actual services rendered. The lack of disclosed awardees further complicates a thorough value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This approach limits the opportunity for multiple vendors to bid, potentially leading to higher prices and reduced innovation. The rationale for not competing the contract is not provided, which is a key factor in understanding the procurement strategy and its impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can mean taxpayers do not benefit from the cost savings typically achieved through competitive bidding. This can result in higher overall spending for government services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the facilities management personnel and potentially the end-users of the supported facilities. Services delivered include general facilities support, which could encompass maintenance, repairs, and operational upkeep. The geographic impact is likely localized to the facilities managed by the Department of State. Workforce implications may include the employment of skilled trades and support staff for facility operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated costs.
Sole-source award raises concerns about transparency and fairness in procurement.
CPFF contract type requires stringent oversight to control costs.
Undisclosed awardee makes it difficult to assess past performance and reliability.

Positive Signals

Facilities support services are essential for government operations.
The contract addresses a critical need for maintaining government infrastructure.

Sector Analysis

Facilities support services represent a significant segment of the government contracting market, encompassing a wide range of activities from routine maintenance to complex building management. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific scope of services and the location of the facilities, but government-wide spending on facilities maintenance and management is substantial.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. As a sole-source award, the opportunities for small businesses to participate may have been limited unless specifically incorporated into the sole-source justification. Further investigation would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) and the agency's procurement oversight bodies. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and undisclosed awardee. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Facilities Management
Government Facilities Support Services
Non-Competitive Contract Awards

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Undisclosed awardee
Lack of competitive bidding
CPFF contract type requires close monitoring

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $21.1 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 $21.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-01-01. End: 2016-02-29.

What was the specific justification for awarding this facilities support services contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are awarded when only one responsible source is available, or in cases of urgent and compelling need. Without this justification, it is impossible to assess whether the non-competitive award was appropriate and in the government's best interest. This information is crucial for understanding the procurement rationale and potential implications for cost and competition.

Can the contractor's track record and past performance be assessed for this contract?

No, the contractor's track record and past performance cannot be assessed from the provided data. The 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' field indicates that the identity of the awardee is not publicly available. This lack of transparency makes it impossible to review their performance on previous contracts, their financial stability, or their capacity to deliver the required facilities support services effectively. This is a significant gap in assessing the overall risk and reliability of the contract.

How does the total contract value of $21.1 million compare to similar facilities support contracts awarded by the Department of State or other agencies?

Direct comparison of the $21.1 million contract value is challenging without knowing the specific scope of services, geographic location, and duration of comparable contracts. However, for a 424-day period (approximately 14 months), this value suggests a substantial scope of services. Facilities support contracts can vary widely in cost depending on the size and complexity of the facilities managed. The lack of competition for this award means there is no benchmark from a bidding process to assess if this value is competitive.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type for facilities support services?

The primary risk with a CPFF contract is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as the government agrees to pay all allowable costs plus a fixed fee. This can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently. For facilities support services, effective oversight is crucial to ensure that costs incurred are reasonable, allocable, and necessary, and that the fixed fee adequately compensates the contractor for their effort without being excessive.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded for 'Facilities Support Services'?

Awarding a contract for 'Facilities Support Services' signifies the government's need for ongoing operational and maintenance support for its physical infrastructure. This can encompass a broad range of activities, including but not limited to, building maintenance, repairs, janitorial services, groundskeeping, security systems maintenance, and utility management. The effective delivery of these services is critical for ensuring the functionality, safety, and efficiency of government facilities.

What does the 'NOT COMPETED' status imply for taxpayer value?

The 'NOT COMPETED' status, indicating a sole-source award, implies that the government did not explore options with multiple potential vendors. This generally means that taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible price, as competitive bidding processes are designed to drive down costs through market forces. Without competition, there is a reduced incentive for the awarded contractor to offer the most cost-effective solution, potentially leading to higher expenditures for the government.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

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: $62,595,093

Exercised Options: $62,595,093

Current Obligation: $21,134,918

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline