State Department awards $31M for security services, raising questions on value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,165,851 ($31.2M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2016-08-01

End Date: 2022-04-30

Contract Duration: 2,098 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT AWARD

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $31.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT AWARD Key points: 1. The contract's duration of nearly 7 years suggests a long-term need for security services. 2. The use of Time and Materials pricing may lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 3. The award to 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' lacks specificity, potentially obscuring the actual service provider. 4. The relatively low number of bids (2) for a full and open competition warrants further investigation into market dynamics. 5. Benchmarking the per-unit cost is difficult without more granular data on the services provided.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of over $31 million for security guard and patrol services over almost seven years presents a significant expenditure. Without specific details on the number of personnel, hours, or geographic locations covered, it is challenging to benchmark the value effectively against similar contracts. The Time and Materials (T&M) contract type, while offering flexibility, can also present risks for cost control if not rigorously monitored, potentially leading to a less favorable value proposition compared to fixed-price contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. However, with only two bids received, the level of competition may have been limited. This could suggest potential barriers to entry for other firms or a concentrated market for these specific security services. A low number of bidders can sometimes result in less aggressive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally beneficial for taxpayers, the low number of bids received here might mean that taxpayers did not benefit from the most competitive pricing possible.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the personnel and entities requiring security services, potentially including diplomatic missions, personnel, and assets abroad. The services delivered include security guards and patrol services, crucial for maintaining safety and order. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in areas where the Department of State operates and requires security, potentially overseas. Workforce implications could include the employment of security personnel, both directly by the awardee and indirectly through subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specificity in contractor name ('MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES') hinders accountability and transparency.
Time and Materials contract type poses a risk of cost escalation without stringent oversight.
Low number of bids (2) in a 'full and open' competition raises concerns about market competitiveness and potential price inflation.
The long contract duration (nearly 7 years) increases the risk of performance degradation or evolving security needs not being met efficiently.

Positive Signals

Awarded under 'full and open competition,' theoretically allowing for broad market participation.
The contract addresses a critical need for security services, essential for government operations.

Sector Analysis

The security services industry is a substantial sector within the broader professional services market. This contract falls under the Security Guards and Patrol Services (NAICS 561612) category. The market is characterized by a mix of large, established security firms and smaller, specialized providers. Government contracts for security services are common across various agencies, reflecting the ongoing need for physical security. Benchmarking this award against similar government contracts for security services would require detailed information on the scope of work, personnel deployed, and geographic locations.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included a small business set-aside. Given the nature of the services and the potential scale, it is possible that larger, more established firms were the primary bidders. Further analysis would be needed to determine if any subcontracting opportunities were mandated or utilized for small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of State's contracting and program management offices. The Inspector General's office for the Department of State would have jurisdiction to investigate any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is limited by the lack of detailed public information regarding the specific services rendered and the performance of the contractor.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Security Contracts
Federal Security Guard Services
Global Security Operations

Risk Flags

Lack of Specific Contractor Identification
Potential for Cost Overruns (T&M Contract)
Limited Competition Despite Full and Open Solicitation
Vague Service Description

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $31.2 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT AWARD

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2016-08-01. End: 2022-04-30.

What specific security services were provided under this contract, and how were they quantified?

The contract is categorized under NAICS code 561612, 'Security Guards and Patrol Services.' However, the provided data does not specify the exact nature of these services beyond this general classification. This could range from static guard posts at facilities to mobile patrol units, access control, or specialized security details. Quantifying these services would typically involve metrics such as the number of guard hours, patrol routes covered, incidents responded to, or square footage secured. Without this granular detail, it is impossible to assess the volume or intensity of the security provided.

How does the total contract value of $31.16 million compare to similar security service contracts awarded by the Department of State or other agencies?

Benchmarking this $31.16 million contract requires comparison with contracts for similar security guard and patrol services, ideally with comparable durations and geographic scopes. For instance, if this contract covered security for multiple high-risk embassies over nearly seven years, the cost might be reasonable. Conversely, if it covered a single, low-risk facility, it could be considered high. A preliminary search reveals numerous federal contracts for security services ranging from a few hundred thousand to tens of millions of dollars annually. The 'Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees' designation makes direct comparison difficult without knowing the specific entity and its operational context.

What are the risks associated with the 'Time and Materials' (T&M) contract type for this security service award?

The primary risk with a T&M contract is the potential for cost overruns, as the government pays for the actual labor hours and material costs incurred by the contractor, plus a fixed fee or fixed hourly rate. Unlike fixed-price contracts, there is less incentive for the contractor to control costs efficiently. For security services, this could mean inflated hourly rates, unnecessary overtime, or inefficient deployment of personnel. Effective oversight, including detailed timesheets, work verification, and strict adherence to labor hour ceilings, is crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives good value for its money.

What does the low number of bids (2) in a 'full and open competition' suggest about the market for these security services?

A 'full and open competition' theoretically allows any qualified vendor to bid. Receiving only two bids suggests that the market for these specific security services, perhaps in the particular geographic region or for the specific requirements, may be limited. This could be due to high barriers to entry (e.g., specialized equipment, security clearances, local presence requirements), a lack of awareness among potential bidders, or simply that only two firms possessed the necessary qualifications and interest. A low number of bidders can reduce competitive pressure, potentially leading to higher prices than if more vendors had competed.

How does the award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' impact transparency and accountability?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is highly non-specific and significantly hinders transparency and accountability. It obscures the identity of the actual company or companies providing the security services. This lack of clarity makes it difficult for oversight bodies, the public, and even the contracting agency to track performance, assess responsibility, and ensure compliance with contract terms and ethical standards. It raises questions about due diligence in vetting the awardees and could potentially mask subcontracting arrangements or the involvement of entities with questionable backgrounds.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Guards and Patrol Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $44,571,171

Exercised Options: $42,715,662

Current Obligation: $31,165,851

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline