DoD's $150M Facilities Support Services Contract Awarded to Professional Contract Services, Inc. with Extended Duration

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $149,586,824 ($149.6M)

Contractor: Professional Contract Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-08-31

End Date: 2023-03-01

Contract Duration: 4,200 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.6K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 0001 PHASE IN

Place of Performance

Location: FORT SILL, COMANCHE County, OKLAHOMA, 73503

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $149.6 million to PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES, INC. for work described as: 0001 PHASE IN Key points: 1. The contract value of approximately $150 million over its extended period suggests a significant investment in facilities support. 2. The 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' award type raises questions about the justification for limited competition and potential impact on pricing. 3. The contract's long duration (4200 days) indicates a need for sustained services, but also warrants scrutiny for potential cost overruns or scope creep. 4. The fixed firm price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope of work remains well-defined. 5. The absence of specific small business set-aside information requires further investigation into subcontracting opportunities. 6. The contract's performance period extending to March 2023 suggests a recent or ongoing engagement requiring current performance data.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $150 million contract is challenging without detailed scope of work and performance metrics. However, the extended duration of over 11 years (4200 days) for a facilities support services contract warrants careful review. Comparing this to similar long-term facilities management contracts within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies would be necessary to assess if the pricing is competitive. The firm fixed-price nature offers some cost control, but the sheer scale and duration necessitate robust oversight to ensure value for money is maintained throughout the contract lifecycle.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis, indicating that the government did not conduct a full and open competition. The specific justification for this limited competition is not provided in the data. Typically, sole-source awards are made when only one responsible source can provide the required services. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for price discovery through bidding, potentially leading to higher costs for the government compared to a competitive procurement.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without a competitive process, there is less pressure on the contractor to offer the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, which receives essential facilities support services. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, operations, and potentially other facility management functions across various Army installations. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in areas where the Department of the Army operates facilities, potentially across multiple states or regions. Workforce implications could include direct employment by the contractor and potential indirect impacts on government personnel managing the contract.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competitive bidding may result in higher costs for taxpayers.
Extended contract duration increases the risk of cost overruns or scope creep without diligent oversight.
Absence of specific small business participation details raises concerns about opportunities for smaller enterprises.
The 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' status requires a strong justification to ensure it was truly necessary.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty for the government.
The long duration suggests a stable, ongoing need for these critical facilities support services.
Award to a single contractor may indicate specialized capabilities or a streamlined management approach.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services fall under the broader Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector. This sector is a significant component of federal contracting, encompassing a wide range of support functions for government operations. The market for facilities management is substantial, with numerous private sector companies offering these services. Federal spending in this area is driven by the need to maintain government infrastructure, including buildings, grounds, and related utilities. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale, long-term facilities support contracts awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense, General Services Administration, or Department of Homeland Security.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside (ss: false, sb: false). This means the contract was not specifically targeted for small businesses. While the prime contractor, Professional Contract Services, Inc., may be a large business, the implications for the small business ecosystem depend on their subcontracting plans. Without explicit information on subcontracting goals or achievements, it's difficult to assess the impact on small businesses. Federal regulations often encourage prime contractors to utilize small businesses for subcontracting, but the extent to which this occurs on this contract remains unclear.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) at the Department of the Army, responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency assessment would require access to contract performance reports, payment histories, and any modifications. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's lifecycle.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Army Base Operations Support Contracts
Federal Facilities Management Services
Professional Services Contracts
Long-Term Government Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award justification requires review.
Long contract duration necessitates robust performance monitoring.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting data.
Potential for cost escalation over the contract's life.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $149.6 million to PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES, INC.. 0001 PHASE IN

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $149.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-08-31. End: 2023-03-01.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded under 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' (CT: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION), which is a form of sole-source procurement. Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 6 outlines the policies for contracting without full and open competition. Common justifications include unique capabilities, urgent and compelling needs, or when only one responsible source exists. Without further documentation from the awarding agency (Department of the Army), the precise reason for this sole-source award remains unknown. This lack of competition means that the government did not explore potential alternatives or leverage market competition to potentially secure better pricing or terms. A thorough review of the Justification and Approval (J&A) document, if available, would be necessary to understand the agency's rationale and assess its validity.

How does the total contract value of approximately $150 million compare to similar facilities support contracts within the Department of Defense?

The total contract value of approximately $150 million over its extended duration is substantial, suggesting a significant scope of services. To benchmark this value, one would need to compare it against other large-scale, long-term facilities support contracts awarded by the Department of Defense (DoD) or other federal agencies. Factors such as the specific services included (e.g., janitorial, groundskeeping, HVAC maintenance, minor repairs), the geographic coverage, and the contract duration are critical for a meaningful comparison. For instance, contracts for base operations support (BOS) at major military installations can often run into hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars over their lifespan. Without detailed service breakdowns and performance metrics for this specific contract, a precise comparison is difficult. However, the $150 million figure over 11+ years suggests an average annual value of roughly $13-14 million, which is within the range of significant, but not unprecedented, facilities support contracts for large organizations.

What are the potential risks associated with the contract's long duration of over 11 years?

The contract's duration of approximately 4200 days (over 11 years) presents several potential risks. Firstly, there is an increased risk of scope creep, where the requirements may evolve or expand beyond the original intent, potentially leading to cost increases if not managed carefully through contract modifications. Secondly, the extended period increases the likelihood of unforeseen economic changes, such as inflation or shifts in labor costs, which could impact the contractor's profitability and potentially lead to requests for equitable adjustments if not adequately addressed in the contract terms. Thirdly, maintaining consistent service quality and contractor performance over such a long period can be challenging. Robust oversight, regular performance reviews, and clear communication channels are crucial to mitigate these risks. Finally, the government may become locked into a particular service provider, potentially missing out on innovations or more cost-effective solutions that emerge in the market over time.

What is the track record of Professional Contract Services, Inc. in performing similar federal contracts?

Assessing the track record of Professional Contract Services, Inc. (PCS) requires examining their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving facilities support services. Information on past performance, including CPARS (Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System) ratings, would provide insights into their reliability, quality of work, and adherence to schedule and budget on previous engagements. A review of their contract history would reveal the types and sizes of contracts they have successfully managed, as well as any instances of disputes, terminations, or performance issues. Without access to specific performance data for PCS, it is difficult to definitively assess their track record. However, the fact that they were awarded a significant, long-term contract by the Department of the Army suggests they likely possess the necessary qualifications and have demonstrated satisfactory performance on prior work.

What are the implications of the 'firm fixed price' contract type for cost control and contractor risk?

The 'firm fixed price' (FFP) contract type is generally considered advantageous for the government when the scope of work is well-defined and unlikely to change significantly. Under an FFP contract, the contractor assumes most of the risk for cost overruns. The price is set at the outset and generally does not change, regardless of the contractor's actual costs. This provides the government with budget certainty and protects against unexpected cost increases. For the contractor, the FFP structure incentivizes efficiency and cost control, as any savings achieved below the fixed price contribute directly to their profit. However, if the scope of work is not adequately defined or if unforeseen circumstances arise, the contractor may face significant losses, potentially impacting their ability or willingness to perform. Conversely, if the government's requirements change, modifications to the FFP contract can be complex and may lead to price adjustments.

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) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W9124J11R0021

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 718 W FM 1626, AUSTIN, TX, 78748

Business Categories: AbilityOne Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $149,586,824

Exercised Options: $149,586,824

Current Obligation: $149,586,824

Actual Outlays: $-19

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline