State Department's $27M Facilities Support Services contract awarded non-competitively over 8 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,025,878 ($27.0M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2005-03-16

End Date: 2013-01-24

Contract Duration: 2,871 days

Daily Burn Rate: $9.4K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $27.0 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Significant long-term commitment to a single vendor for essential facilities support. 2. Lack of competition raises questions about potential overpayment and value for money. 3. Extended contract duration may indicate a stable, long-term need or a missed opportunity for re-competition. 4. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs, but without competition, its effectiveness is limited. 5. Performance context is crucial to understand if the services met evolving needs over the 8-year period. 6. Sector positioning in facilities support services is a critical but often overlooked area of government operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the non-competitive award and the broad nature of 'Facilities Support Services.' Without comparable bids or market analysis at the time of award, it's difficult to definitively assess if the $27 million spent represented a fair price. The extended duration suggests a consistent need, but the lack of re-competition over nearly a decade implies a potential missed opportunity to secure better pricing or service levels through competitive bidding.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning there was no formal solicitation process to gather multiple bids. This approach bypasses the standard competitive procedures designed to ensure the government receives the best possible value. The lack of bidders means the government did not benefit from price discovery through market competition, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple firms had vied for the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for these services due to the absence of competitive pressure. The government missed the opportunity to leverage competition to drive down costs and potentially improve service quality.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of State personnel and operations supported by these facilities services. Services likely included maintenance, repairs, custodial, and potentially security for government facilities. Geographic impact is tied to the specific facilities managed by the State Department under this contract, likely domestic. Workforce implications could involve direct hires by the contractor or impacts on government facility management staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price discovery and potentially inflates costs.
Long contract duration without re-competition may indicate a lack of market dynamism or strategic sourcing.
Broad 'Facilities Support Services' category makes specific performance and value assessment difficult without further detail.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the initial price was fair.
The extended period suggests a stable and reliable service provider was likely maintained.
Consistent service delivery over 8 years indicates a potentially successful long-term relationship, assuming performance was adequate.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services represent a significant segment of the government contracting market, encompassing a wide range of activities necessary for the operation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific scope and location of the facilities, but government-wide spending on facility maintenance and management is in the billions annually.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it provide information on subcontracting opportunities. Without specific set-aside provisions or reporting on small business participation, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear. It's possible that larger, established firms were the primary recipients, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller specialized contractors in this domain.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve contract officers, program managers within the Department of State, and potentially Inspector General audits. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance standards outlined in the contract. Transparency is limited by the non-competitive nature of the award and the undisclosed domestic awardees, making public scrutiny of the selection and pricing process difficult.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Buildings Fund
Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Public Buildings Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Lack of transparency regarding awardee
Extended contract duration without re-competition

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $27.0 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 $27.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-03-16. End: 2013-01-24.

What specific services were included under the 'Facilities Support Services' umbrella for this contract?

The provided data categorizes this contract under NAICS code 561210, which covers Facilities Support Services. This broad category typically includes a range of services such as building operation and maintenance, cleaning, security, landscaping, and potentially minor repairs. However, without the specific contract statement of work, the precise services rendered under this $27 million award remain undefined. Understanding the exact scope is crucial for evaluating its value, performance, and relevance to the Department of State's operational needs over the eight-year period from March 2005 to January 2013.

Why was this contract awarded on a non-competitive basis, and what was the justification?

The data explicitly states this was a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER.' Government contracts are typically awarded competitively to ensure fair pricing and best value. A non-competitive award, often referred to as sole-source, is an exception and requires specific justification, such as the existence of only one responsible source, urgent and compelling needs, or specific statutory authority. The rationale for this particular non-competitive award is not detailed in the provided data. Without this justification, it's impossible to assess whether the deviation from competitive procedures was warranted or if it represented a missed opportunity to engage the broader market.

How does the $27 million total value compare to similar facilities support contracts awarded by the State Department or other agencies during that period?

Direct comparison of the $27 million total value is difficult without knowing the specific scope, duration, and geographic locations covered by this contract. Facilities support needs vary significantly. However, given the nearly 8-year duration (March 2005 - January 2013), the average annual spend was approximately $3.46 million. This figure needs to be contextualized against the size and complexity of the facilities managed by the State Department. Generally, large-scale facilities management contracts for government agencies can range from millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on the portfolio. The non-competitive nature, however, makes a direct value-for-money comparison problematic, as market rates established through competition are absent.

What were the performance outcomes or key metrics tracked for this contract?

The provided data does not include any information regarding the performance outcomes or key metrics tracked for this contract. For a facilities support services contract, typical performance indicators might include response times for maintenance requests, uptime of critical building systems, cleanliness standards, energy efficiency targets, and overall user satisfaction. Without access to performance reports, contract modifications, or any quality assurance surveillance plan documentation, it is impossible to assess whether the contractor met the government's requirements or if the services delivered were effective and efficient throughout the contract's lifespan.

What is the track record of the undisclosed domestic awardee in providing facilities support services to the federal government?

The data indicates 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)' for this contract. As the awardee is not identified, it is impossible to research their specific track record in providing facilities support services to the federal government or other clients. This lack of transparency hinders a comprehensive assessment of the contractor's past performance, reliability, and experience, which are critical factors in evaluating the risk and potential success of any government contract, especially one awarded non-competitively over an extended period.

Were there any significant contract modifications or changes in scope during the contract's nearly 8-year duration?

The provided data does not contain information about contract modifications or changes in scope for this delivery order. A contract duration of nearly eight years (March 2005 to January 2013) often involves adjustments to accommodate evolving needs, unforeseen circumstances, or changes in government requirements. Without details on modifications, it's difficult to ascertain if the contract's value increased significantly, if the scope expanded or contracted, or if there were any disputes or changes in terms that could impact the overall cost and performance assessment.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: EDUCATION AND TRAINING › EDUCATION AND TRAINING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Offers Received: 1

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: $27,025,878

Exercised Options: $27,025,878

Current Obligation: $27,025,878

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SLMAQM04C0030

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline