DoD's $139M Fort Sill Facilities Support Contract Awarded to VT Griffin Services Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $139,015,337 ($139.0M)

Contractor: VT Griffin Services Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-08-01

End Date: 2011-10-31

Contract Duration: 2,282 days

Daily Burn Rate: $60.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: DPW SERVICES, FORT SILL, OK

Place of Performance

Location: FORT SILL, COMANCHE County, OKLAHOMA, 73503

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $139.0 million to VT GRIFFIN SERVICES INC. for work described as: DPW SERVICES, FORT SILL, OK Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in maintaining critical infrastructure at Fort Sill. 2. Competition dynamics for this large-scale facilities support contract are crucial for ensuring cost-effectiveness. 3. The duration of the contract (2282 days) suggests a long-term need for these services. 4. Performance context will be key to understanding the value delivered over the contract's life. 5. Facilities support services are a foundational element of military base operations. 6. The contract's value places it among substantial service agreements within the Department of Defense.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure allows for incentives based on performance, which can lead to both cost efficiencies and potential overruns if not managed carefully. Comparing it to similar large-scale base operations and support contracts across the DoD would provide a clearer picture of its relative value. The raw dollar amount is substantial, necessitating close scrutiny of the services rendered and their necessity.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. With 12 bids received, the level of competition appears robust, which generally supports better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government. The presence of numerous bidders suggests a healthy market for these types of services.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process for a contract of this magnitude is beneficial for taxpayers, as it drives down costs and encourages contractors to offer competitive pricing to win the award.

Public Impact

Military personnel and their families stationed at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, benefit from well-maintained facilities. The contract ensures the provision of essential facilities support services, including maintenance, repair, and operations. The geographic impact is concentrated at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, supporting the base's operational readiness. The contract likely supports a significant number of jobs, both directly with the contractor and indirectly through subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee contracts can sometimes lead to higher final costs if performance incentives are not tightly controlled.
The long duration of the contract (over 6 years) increases the risk of cost escalation due to inflation or unforeseen operational changes.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the true value for money.
The sheer scale of the contract could present management and oversight challenges.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition with 12 bids, indicating a competitive market and potentially good pricing.
The contract aims to ensure the operational readiness and quality of life at a major military installation.
The Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes contractor performance, potentially leading to higher quality service delivery.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a broad category encompassing a wide range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure. This sector is critical for government operations, particularly for large installations like military bases. The market for these services is substantial, with numerous providers ranging from small local businesses to large federal contractors. This contract fits within the broader defense sector's need for comprehensive base support services, ensuring operational continuity and readiness.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) was false, and there was no specific small business set-aside (ss). This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses, and the prime contractor is likely a large entity. While there's no explicit mention of subcontracting plans for small businesses, large federal contracts often include subcontracting goals. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether VT Griffin Services Inc. actively seeks small business subcontractors for specialized services.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates robust performance monitoring to ensure that award fees are justified. Transparency would be enhanced through regular reporting requirements and potentially through contract data reporting systems. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Department of Defense Service Contracts
Army Installation Management

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure.
Long contract duration increases risk of unforeseen cost increases.
Lack of specific performance metrics hinders value assessment.
Contract scale may present oversight challenges.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $139.0 million to VT GRIFFIN SERVICES INC.. DPW SERVICES, FORT SILL, OK

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VT GRIFFIN 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 $139.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-08-01. End: 2011-10-31.

What is the track record of VT Griffin Services Inc. in performing similar large-scale facilities support contracts for the Department of Defense?

Assessing VT Griffin Services Inc.'s track record requires a deep dive into their past performance evaluations on similar contracts. Federal procurement databases and past performance questionnaires (PPQs) would provide insights into their reliability, quality of service, and adherence to schedules and budgets on previous DoD contracts. Specific details on contract awards, task orders, and any reported issues or commendations would be crucial. Without this specific data, it's difficult to definitively assess their capability to manage a contract of this magnitude and duration effectively. A review of their contract history would reveal their experience with Cost Plus Award Fee structures and their ability to meet performance targets.

How does the awarded amount compare to the estimated cost or budget for these facilities support services at Fort Sill?

The provided data only includes the awarded amount ($139,015,337.40) and does not contain information on the government's independent government cost estimate (IGCE) or the initial budget allocated for these facilities support services. To assess value, a comparison between the awarded price and the IGCE is essential. A significantly lower award price than the IGCE might indicate aggressive bidding or potential underestimation of costs by the government, while a higher award price could suggest a robustly competed contract or an underestimated IGCE. Without the IGCE, it's challenging to determine if the government secured a favorable price.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and award fee criteria defined in the contract, and how were they met?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or the criteria for the award fee structure within this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract. CPAF contracts typically include detailed performance standards related to areas such as response times for maintenance requests, quality of repairs, preventative maintenance completion rates, safety compliance, and customer satisfaction. To evaluate the contractor's performance and the value received, an analysis of these specific KPIs and the contractor's achievement against them over the contract period is necessary. Without this information, assessing whether the award fees were justified and if the contractor delivered exceptional service is not possible.

What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at Fort Sill over the past decade?

Analyzing historical spending for facilities support services at Fort Sill would require accessing historical contract data for the installation. This would involve identifying all previous contracts for similar services, their award amounts, durations, and contractors. By aggregating this data, one could identify trends in spending, potential increases or decreases in service costs, and shifts in contracting strategies. Understanding this historical context is vital for evaluating whether the current $139 million contract represents an anomaly, a continuation of a trend, or a significant change in the scope or cost of services provided at Fort Sill.

What is the potential impact of the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure on the final cost of this contract?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure means that the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus an additional fee that is based on performance. The 'award' portion of the fee is contingent upon meeting or exceeding specific performance objectives outlined in the contract. While CPAF can incentivize high performance and quality service, it also carries the risk of increasing the final contract cost if the performance targets are met or exceeded, potentially leading to higher fees than a fixed-price contract. Effective oversight and clearly defined, measurable performance standards are critical to managing the cost implications of the CPAF structure and ensuring that award fees are earned legitimately.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9124L05R00010007

Offers Received: 12

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Jordan Company L P (UEI: 050381243)

Address: 10745 WESTSIDE WAY STE 300, ALPHARETTA, GA, 30009

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $139,015,337

Exercised Options: $139,015,337

Current Obligation: $139,015,337

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline