State Department's $23.7M facilities support contract awarded competitively over 8 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,722,151 ($23.7M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2004-07-01

End Date: 2013-01-24

Contract Duration: 3,129 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.6K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $23.7 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract achieved competitive pricing through multiple bids. 2. Long duration suggests potential for sustained service delivery. 3. Fixed-price contract shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. Services provided are essential for overseas operations. 5. No small business set-aside indicates a focus on larger prime contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $23.7 million over approximately 8 years averages to about $2.96 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar facilities support contracts for overseas operations is challenging without specific details on the scope of services and geographic locations. However, the competitive nature of the award suggests that pricing was likely scrutinized against market rates. The firm-fixed-price structure also implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, which can be a positive indicator of value if performance is met.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, indicating that it was competed under full and open competition. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a reasonable level of competition for these facilities support services. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three offers generally provide a basis for price comparison and selection of the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive award process is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple companies to offer their best pricing and service terms, leading to a more cost-effective outcome compared to non-competitive awards.

Public Impact

Supports U.S. diplomatic and consular missions abroad by ensuring the functionality of facilities. Benefits government personnel and their families stationed overseas. Geographic impact is global, covering various overseas locations where U.S. embassies and consulates operate. Workforce implications include employment for facilities management and maintenance personnel, potentially both U.S. citizens and local hires.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 8 years) could lead to complacency or reduced incentive for innovation if not managed actively.
Lack of specific details on awardee makes it difficult to assess past performance or track record.
Overseas operations can present unique logistical and security challenges that may impact service delivery and cost.

Positive Signals

Competitive award process suggests a fair market price was likely achieved.
Firm-fixed-price contract aligns contractor incentives with successful service delivery.
Essential services provided contribute directly to the effectiveness of U.S. foreign policy and operations.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) encompass a broad range of services related to the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. This sector is critical for government agencies operating in diverse and often challenging environments, such as overseas posts. The market includes numerous providers, from large integrated facility management companies to specialized service firms. The government's spending in this area is substantial, reflecting the need to maintain secure and functional infrastructure for its personnel and operations worldwide.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity capable of handling the full scope of services. The absence of small business participation in the prime contract may limit opportunities for smaller firms to engage in this specific government service area, although they might participate as subcontractors if the prime contractor opts to use them.

Oversight & Accountability

As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer at the Department of State. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability by linking payment to performance. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though specific performance metrics and oversight reports are often internal. Inspector General reviews could be initiated if specific concerns regarding waste, fraud, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Overseas Building Operations
Department of State Facilities Management
Global Facilities Support Services
Embassy and Consulate Maintenance Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may reduce incentive for innovation.
Lack of specific awardee details hinders performance assessment.
Overseas operational complexities can introduce unforeseen risks.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $23.7 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 $23.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-07-01. End: 2013-01-24.

What specific facilities support services were included under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 561210, Facilities Support Services. This typically encompasses a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. Examples include routine maintenance, repairs, custodial services, groundskeeping, pest control, security system maintenance, and potentially specialized support for overseas installations like power generation, water treatment, and waste management. The exact scope would be detailed in the contract's statement of work, which is not provided here but would specify the precise deliverables and service standards expected from the contractor for the duration of the contract.

How does the $23.7 million total value compare to similar overseas facilities support contracts?

Direct comparison of the $23.7 million total value is difficult without knowing the specific locations, duration, and scope of services. Overseas facilities support can vary significantly in cost due to factors like security requirements, logistical challenges, local labor costs, and the size and complexity of the facilities. However, for a contract spanning over 8 years (from July 2004 to January 2013), an average annual spend of approximately $2.96 million is not inherently excessive for supporting diplomatic missions abroad. Larger, more complex posts or those in high-risk environments could easily command higher annual expenditures for comprehensive facilities management.

What is the significance of the contract being 'Firm Fixed Price'?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract means the price is set and not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience in performing the work. This contract type is advantageous for the government when the scope of work is well-defined and there is little uncertainty about the cost of performance. For taxpayers, FFP shifts the risk of cost overruns entirely to the contractor. If the contractor's costs are higher than anticipated, their profit margin decreases; if costs are lower, their profit increases. This structure incentivizes the contractor to control costs and perform efficiently to maximize their profit.

What does the 'Competitive Delivery Order' award type imply about the procurement process?

A 'Competitive Delivery Order' signifies that this specific task order was awarded through a competitive bidding process, likely against a pre-existing indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar multiple-award framework. This means that multiple vendors were invited to submit proposals, and the award was made based on factors such as price, technical approach, and past performance. The fact that it was competed suggests that the Department of State sought to leverage market competition to obtain the best value for these facilities support services, rather than awarding the work on a sole-source or limited-source basis.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this duration (over 8 years)?

Contracts spanning over eight years, like this one (July 2004 - January 2013), carry several potential risks. Firstly, the long duration might lead to contractor complacency, where the incentive to innovate or provide exceptional service diminishes over time, especially if performance metrics are not rigorously monitored. Secondly, the cost of services could become uncompetitive compared to current market rates if the contract terms do not include mechanisms for periodic price adjustments or re-competition. Thirdly, the specific needs of the agency or the operational environment might change significantly over such a long period, potentially rendering the original scope of work or service level agreements less relevant or efficient, leading to potential inefficiencies or the need for costly modifications.

How does the lack of small business participation impact the contract's value proposition?

The absence of a small business set-aside or explicit subcontracting goals for small businesses means that the primary contract was likely awarded to a larger, established firm. While this can sometimes streamline management and ensure capacity, it potentially limits the government's ability to leverage the innovation, agility, and potentially lower overhead costs that small businesses can offer. It also means fewer opportunities for small businesses to gain experience and revenue in supporting critical overseas operations. The value proposition is therefore focused on the capabilities of the prime contractor, rather than a broader economic benefit through small business engagement.

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

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,722,151

Exercised Options: $23,722,151

Current Obligation: $23,722,151

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SLMAQM04C0030

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline