Department of the Army's $100M facilities support contract awarded without competition, raising value-for-money questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $100,160,598 ($100.2M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-06-22

End Date: 2022-07-06

Contract Duration: 2,571 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CL,CT::IGF

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $100.2 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: IGF::CL,CT::IGF Key points: 1. The contract's significant value and lack of competition warrant scrutiny regarding potential overspending. 2. Facilities support services are critical for operational readiness, but the pricing structure needs detailed review. 3. The absence of a competitive bidding process limits transparency and potentially inflates costs. 4. Performance data and contractor track record are essential to assess the value delivered over the contract's duration. 5. The contract's long duration (2571 days) suggests a need for ongoing performance monitoring and potential re-competition. 6. The specific services provided under this large contract require clear definition to benchmark against industry standards.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

With a total value exceeding $100 million and awarded on a cost-plus-fixed-fee basis without competition, assessing value for money is challenging. The lack of competitive benchmarking makes it difficult to determine if the pricing is fair and reasonable. Without comparable contracts or market data, it's impossible to definitively state if this represents a good deal for the government. The cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, while offering flexibility, can incentivize higher costs if not rigorously managed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a sole-source procurement, meaning it was not competed. The Department of the Army did not solicit bids from multiple offerors. This approach bypasses the standard competitive process, which typically leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government. The reasons for this sole-source award are not detailed in the provided data, but such awards often stem from specific circumstances like urgent needs or unique capabilities.

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

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who receive essential facilities support services. Services likely include maintenance, repair, operations, and potentially management of various facilities. The geographic impact is tied to the Army installations where these facilities are located, likely within the U.S. Workforce implications could involve direct hires by the contractor or reliance on subcontractors, impacting local employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can incentivize increased spending if not closely monitored.
Long contract duration without re-competition limits opportunities for cost reduction.
Undisclosed domestic awardees prevent assessment of contractor's specific track record and capacity.
Absence of specific performance metrics makes it hard to gauge service quality and efficiency.

Positive Signals

Facilities support services are crucial for maintaining operational readiness of Army installations.
The contract duration suggests a stable, long-term relationship for essential services.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee can provide flexibility to adapt to changing facility needs.
Domestic awardees ensure services are provided within the U.S. economy.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services fall under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector. This sector is characterized by a wide range of specialized services supporting government and commercial operations. The market includes numerous providers, from large facility management corporations to smaller specialized firms. Benchmarking spending in this area is complex due to the varied nature of services and facility types, but large-scale contracts like this represent significant government investment in maintaining its infrastructure.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss and sb flags) was not a stated requirement or outcome for this contract. Without specific subcontracting plans or set-aside provisions, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal. However, the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors, which would need to be tracked separately to assess their contribution.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) and potentially an Inspector General (IG) if issues arise. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of publicly disclosed performance metrics. Accountability rests with the contracting agency to ensure the contractor meets the terms of the Cost Plus Fixed Fee agreement and delivers the required services.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Logistics and Supply Chain Management
Infrastructure Maintenance and Repair
Government Facilities Management
Real Property Management

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Cost-Plus Contract Type
Long Contract Duration
Undisclosed Awardee Details
Potential for Cost Overruns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $100.2 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). IGF::CL,CT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $100.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-06-22. End: 2022-07-06.

What specific facilities support services were included under this $100M contract?

The provided data classifies this contract under NAICS code 561210, which corresponds to Facilities Support Services. This broad category typically encompasses a wide range of activities necessary for the operation and maintenance of government facilities. While specific details are not available in the abbreviated data, common services include building operations, maintenance and repair (HVAC, electrical, plumbing), groundskeeping, custodial services, pest control, waste management, and potentially security services. The 'Cost Plus Fixed Fee' (CPFF) contract type suggests that the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. The exact scope would be detailed in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), which is crucial for understanding the full value and performance expectations.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The data indicates this contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and awarded as a 'SOLE SOURCE'. Government agencies typically pursue sole-source contracts when only one responsible source can satisfy the agency's needs. This can occur due to urgent and compelling circumstances, the unique capabilities of a single contractor, or when a follow-on contract is required for compatibility reasons. Without further documentation from the Department of the Army, the specific justification for this sole-source award remains undisclosed. However, such decisions are subject to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requirements and often require extensive justification and approval processes to ensure fair and reasonable pricing and prevent abuse.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure impact cost control and value for money?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type reimburses the contractor for all allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee. This structure offers flexibility, especially for services where the scope might evolve or is difficult to define precisely upfront, such as facilities support. However, it presents a potential risk to cost control because the contractor is incentivized to incur costs to cover their overhead and potentially increase the base upon which the fixed fee is calculated (though the fee itself is fixed). Effective oversight by the government is paramount to scrutinize allowable costs, prevent cost overruns, and ensure the fixed fee represents fair profit for the services rendered. Without robust government oversight, CPFF contracts can be more expensive than fixed-price alternatives.

What is the typical duration for facilities support contracts, and how does this contract's duration compare?

Facilities support contracts can vary significantly in duration depending on the scope of services, the complexity of the facilities, and the agency's strategic planning. Contracts can range from one to five years, often with options for extension. This specific contract had a duration of 2571 days, which is approximately 7 years. This is a relatively long duration, especially for a sole-source award. Longer contracts can provide stability for both the government and the contractor, ensuring continuity of essential services. However, they also reduce opportunities for market competition and potential cost savings that might be realized through periodic re-competition.

What are the potential risks associated with a $100M sole-source contract for facilities support?

The primary risk associated with a $100 million sole-source contract for facilities support is the potential for inflated costs due to the lack of competition. Without bids from multiple vendors, the government may not achieve the most favorable pricing. There's also a risk of complacency from the contractor, as they face no immediate competitive threat. Furthermore, the absence of a competitive process can reduce transparency, making it harder for oversight bodies and the public to assess the contract's value and efficiency. The long duration further exacerbates these risks by locking in terms and potentially delaying the adoption of more cost-effective solutions or technologies that might emerge.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD EQUIPMENT › MAINT, REPAIR, REBUILD OF EQUIPMENT

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: $100,160,598

Exercised Options: $100,160,598

Current Obligation: $100,160,598

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline