DoD's $307M Facilities Support Contract for Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield Shows Long-Term Commitment

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $307,050,224 ($307.1M)

Contractor: Tsay/Ferguson-Williams, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-03-25

End Date: 2023-08-29

Contract Duration: 5,270 days

Daily Burn Rate: $58.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: DPW OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FS&HAAF, GA

Place of Performance

Location: FORT STEWART, LIBERTY County, GEORGIA, 31314

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $307.1 million to TSAY/FERGUSON-WILLIAMS, LLC for work described as: DPW OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FS&HAAF, GA Key points: 1. The contract's significant duration suggests a strategic investment in maintaining critical infrastructure. 2. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure incentivizes performance but requires robust oversight to manage costs. 3. The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' indicates a competitive process, though the specific exclusion warrants review. 4. The contract's value places it among substantial facility support agreements within the Department of Defense. 5. Performance context is crucial given the extended period of service and the nature of facilities operations. 6. The contractor, TSAY/FERGUSON-WILLIAMS, LLC, has a long-standing relationship with the Army for these services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award value of over $307 million across its duration indicates a significant investment. Benchmarking this against similar large-scale, long-term facilities support contracts for major military installations would provide a clearer picture of value for money. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) pricing structure, while common for complex services, necessitates careful monitoring of costs against performance metrics to ensure efficiency and prevent overruns. Without specific performance data and cost breakdowns, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the sustained award suggests perceived value by the agency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This implies that while the competition was initially intended to be broad, certain sources were excluded, leading to a more limited pool of bidders. The number of bids received (10) suggests some level of competition, but the exclusion raises questions about whether the most competitive pricing and innovative solutions were fully explored. Understanding the rationale behind the source exclusion is key to assessing the true impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even with multiple bidders, may have limited the downward pressure on pricing, potentially resulting in higher costs for taxpayers than a truly unrestricted full and open competition might have achieved.

Public Impact

Serves the critical operational and training needs of Fort Stewart and Hunter Army Airfield. Ensures the readiness and functionality of essential facilities, including barracks, administrative buildings, and training grounds. Supports the daily lives and work of thousands of military personnel and civilian employees stationed at the installations. Contributes to the economic stability of the surrounding Georgia communities through contractor employment and local spending. Maintains infrastructure vital for national defense readiness and military force projection.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost creep due to the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure if not rigorously managed.
Long contract duration could lead to complacency or reduced incentive for innovation if performance standards are not consistently high.
The 'Exclusion of Sources' in the competition phase warrants scrutiny to ensure fair market access and optimal pricing.
Dependence on a single contractor for essential services creates a critical reliance that requires robust contingency planning.

Positive Signals

The sustained award over many years indicates consistent contractor performance meeting agency requirements.
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, when managed effectively, can incentivize high-quality service delivery.
The significant duration suggests a stable and reliable service provision, crucial for military base operations.
The contract supports critical infrastructure for national defense, fulfilling a vital government function.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of the broader Facilities Management industry. This sector encompasses a wide range of services including maintenance, repair, operations, and management of physical infrastructure. The market is characterized by large, long-term contracts, often awarded to established players with proven track records, particularly within the government space. Spending in this area is substantial, driven by the extensive real estate holdings of federal agencies, especially the Department of Defense. Comparable contracts often involve multi-year durations and values in the hundreds of millions, reflecting the scale and complexity of maintaining large government facilities.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'ss' being false. Furthermore, the 'sb' flag being false suggests no specific small business subcontracting goals were mandated within the contract details provided. This means that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this significant contract are likely limited to subcontracting roles that may or may not be actively pursued or required by the prime contractor. The absence of set-asides or explicit subcontracting requirements could limit the direct economic benefit to the small business ecosystem for this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract is likely managed by the contracting officer's representative (COR) and the relevant Department of the Army contracting office. The CPAF structure itself implies performance-based oversight, where the 'award fee' component is contingent upon meeting or exceeding defined performance standards. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. While specific Inspector General (IG) involvement isn't detailed here, the DoD IG routinely audits major contracts to ensure fiscal responsibility and operational effectiveness. Robust performance metrics and regular reporting are essential for accountability.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Facilities Engineering Services
Logistics and Base Support Services
Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance
Army Installation Management

Risk Flags

Long-term contract duration may reduce competitive pressure over time.
Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure requires diligent oversight to control costs.
Exclusion of sources in competition limits potential bidder pool.
Single contractor dependency poses operational risk.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $307.1 million to TSAY/FERGUSON-WILLIAMS, LLC. DPW OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FS&HAAF, GA

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TSAY/FERGUSON-WILLIAMS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $307.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-03-25. End: 2023-08-29.

What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield under this contractor?

The provided data indicates a total award value of $307,050,224.22 for this specific contract, spanning from March 25, 2009, to August 29, 2023, a period of approximately 173 months or over 14 years. This suggests a consistent and significant level of spending on facilities support services at these installations over an extended period. While the data doesn't show year-over-year fluctuations or specific spending patterns within the contract's life, the substantial total award implies consistent funding and contract renewals or modifications to maintain this level of expenditure. Further analysis would require access to historical contract modification data and annual spending reports to discern any trends in cost growth, service scope changes, or periods of increased/decreased investment.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure typically impact contractor performance and cost control in long-term facilities contracts?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure is designed to incentivize contractor performance by allowing reimbursement of allowable costs plus a fee that is composed of a base amount and an award amount. The award amount is determined by the government based on the contractor's performance against pre-defined criteria. For long-term facilities contracts, CPAF can be effective in driving high-quality service delivery, especially for complex or evolving requirements where performance standards are difficult to define precisely upfront. However, it also presents challenges. Robust government oversight is critical to ensure that the award criteria are objective, fairly assessed, and that costs are controlled. Without diligent management, there's a risk of cost growth if the government consistently awards high fees, or conversely, underperformance if the award criteria are weak or enforcement is lax. The long duration of this contract necessitates continuous evaluation to ensure the CPAF structure remains an effective tool for both performance and cost management.

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

While the specific line-item details are not provided, 'Facilities Support Services' (NAICS code 561210) typically encompasses a broad range of activities necessary for the operation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. This generally includes routine maintenance and repair of buildings and grounds, custodial services, pest control, refuse collection, security services (physical), laundry and dry-cleaning services, and potentially specialized services like fire suppression system maintenance, utility management, and transportation services within the installation. For a large military installation like Fort Stewart/Hunter Army Airfield, these services are critical for maintaining operational readiness, ensuring the quality of life for service members, and supporting training missions. The extensive duration and value of this contract suggest it covers a comprehensive suite of these essential support functions.

What is the significance of the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' contract type?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' indicates a procurement process that began with the intent of full and open competition but subsequently excluded certain potential sources. This is often used when specific requirements, such as compatibility with existing systems, unique capabilities, or urgent needs, limit the pool of eligible contractors. While it aims for competition, the exclusion inherently restricts the number of bidders compared to a truly unrestricted process. The rationale for exclusion must be well-documented and justified to ensure it serves a legitimate government purpose and does not unduly limit competition. The fact that 10 bids were received suggests that even with exclusions, a competitive environment was fostered, but understanding *why* sources were excluded is crucial for assessing whether the government obtained the best possible value and price.

What are the potential risks associated with a single contractor holding such a long-term, comprehensive facilities support contract?

A primary risk is contractor over-reliance and potential complacency, where the contractor may become less incentivized to innovate or maintain peak performance due to the long-term nature of the agreement and the difficulty of replacing them. Another significant risk is vendor lock-in, making it difficult and costly for the government to switch providers or adopt new technologies if the incumbent contractor is unwilling or unable to adapt. Price increases over time, even within a CPAF structure, can become a concern if not managed tightly. Furthermore, a single point of failure exists; if the contractor experiences financial difficulties, labor disputes, or major operational issues, it could severely disrupt essential base operations. Robust contract management, performance monitoring, and contingency planning are essential to mitigate these risks.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9124M06R0014

Offers Received: 13

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: HWY 68 NORTH OF ESPANOLA, SAN JUAN PUEBLO, NM, 87566

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Government, Native American Tribal Government, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Tribally Owned Firm

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $341,251,267

Exercised Options: $321,898,982

Current Obligation: $307,050,224

Actual Outlays: $151,776

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline