Department of the Army awards $81.5M facilities support contract to Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $81,504,511 ($81.5M)

Contractor: Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2019-05-31

End Date: 2020-11-30

Contract Duration: 549 days

Daily Burn Rate: $148.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF""CL""IGF PM/SO AND SO UPGRADE LABOR AND ODC

Place of Performance

Location: HUNTSVILLE, MADISON County, ALABAMA, 35898

State: Alabama Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $81.5 million to WOLF CREEK FEDERAL SERVICES INC for work described as: IGF""CL""IGF PM/SO AND SO UPGRADE LABOR AND ODC Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. Significant duration of 549 days suggests a substantial scope of work. 3. Cost-plus-fixed-fee structure may incentivize cost increases. 4. No small business set-aside, potentially impacting small business participation. 5. Facilities support services are critical for operational readiness. 6. Contract awarded by the Department of the Army, a major federal spender.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $81.5 million for facilities support services over approximately 18 months appears substantial. Without specific benchmarks for comparable services in Alabama or for the Department of the Army, it is difficult to definitively assess value for money. The cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common for services where costs are uncertain, carries inherent risks of cost overruns. The fixed fee component provides some incentive for efficiency, but the primary cost drivers are reimbursed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning there was no open competition. This significantly limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the best possible price and terms. The absence of multiple bidders means that price discovery through competitive bidding was not utilized, potentially leading to higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards mean taxpayers do not benefit from competitive pricing, potentially resulting in higher overall expenditure for the services rendered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army, receiving essential facilities support services. Services likely include maintenance, repair, and operational support for military facilities. Geographic impact is concentrated in Alabama (ST/SN ALABAMA). Workforce implications include employment opportunities for individuals in facilities management and support roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type can lead to cost overruns.
Lack of small business set-aside may reduce opportunities for small businesses.

Positive Signals

Contract addresses critical facilities support needs for the Department of the Army.
Long contract duration suggests a stable, ongoing requirement.
Fixed fee component provides some level of cost predictability for contractor profit.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a broad category encompassing a wide range of services essential for the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. This sector is characterized by numerous providers, from large integrated facility management companies to smaller specialized service firms. Federal spending in this area is substantial, supporting government operations across all branches and agencies. This contract fits within the broader defense sector spending, specifically supporting the infrastructure needs of the Army.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses mentioned in the provided data. This means that opportunities for small businesses to directly participate in this contract are limited unless they are subcontractors to the prime contractor, Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. The absence of set-aside provisions may reduce the direct flow of federal dollars into the small business ecosystem for this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The Inspector General (IG) for the Department of Defense would have jurisdiction to investigate any potential fraud, waste, or abuse. Transparency is generally enhanced through contract award databases, but the specifics of ongoing oversight and performance monitoring are not detailed in the provided data.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Army Base Operations Support Contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Facilities Management Schedules
Other Sole-Source Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Cost-plus-fixed-fee contract type
Lack of small business participation noted

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $81.5 million to WOLF CREEK FEDERAL SERVICES INC. IGF""CL""IGF PM/SO AND SO UPGRADE LABOR AND ODC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WOLF CREEK FEDERAL 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 $81.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2019-05-31. End: 2020-11-30.

What is the track record of Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. with the Department of the Army and other federal agencies?

Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. has a history of performing various service contracts for the federal government, including facilities support and base operations. Analyzing their past performance with the Department of the Army and other agencies would involve reviewing contract histories, performance evaluations (e.g., CPARS reports), and any past disputes or corrective actions. A review of publicly available contract data indicates they have secured multiple federal contracts, suggesting a capacity to meet government requirements. However, a deeper dive into the quality and timeliness of their past performance, particularly on similar sole-source awards, would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment of their reliability and value proposition.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar facilities support contracts awarded by the Department of the Army or other agencies?

Benchmarking the pricing of this $81.5 million contract is challenging without detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to services of equivalent scope, complexity, and duration. As a sole-source award with a cost-plus-fixed-fee structure, direct price comparisons are difficult. Ideally, one would compare the labor rates, overhead factors, and fixed fee percentages to industry standards and other government contracts for similar services. The absence of competition means there's no direct market validation of the price. Further analysis would require access to detailed cost proposals and historical pricing data for comparable contracts, which is not provided here.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source, cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for facilities support?

The primary risks associated with this contract structure are twofold. Firstly, the sole-source nature eliminates competitive pressure, potentially leading to inflated costs as the contractor faces no direct market incentive to offer the lowest price. Secondly, the cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) structure reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred, plus a predetermined fixed fee. While the fixed fee provides some incentive for efficiency, the reimbursement of costs can reduce the contractor's motivation to control expenses rigorously, increasing the risk of cost overruns. Effective government oversight is crucial to mitigate these risks by scrutinizing allowable costs and ensuring performance standards are met.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities support services by the Department of the Army in Alabama?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for facilities support services by the Department of the Army in Alabama would involve aggregating contract data over several fiscal years. This would reveal trends in contract values, types of services procured, and the contractors frequently awarded these services. Understanding this historical context can help identify whether this $81.5 million award is an outlier, a continuation of a trend, or indicative of changing needs or market conditions. Without access to a comprehensive historical database of Army contracts specifically for Alabama, a precise analysis of spending patterns is not possible with the given data.

How does the duration of this contract (549 days) align with typical facilities support contracts?

A contract duration of 549 days, approximately 18 months, is within the typical range for significant facilities support contracts. Such contracts often cover extended periods to ensure continuity of essential services, manage complex maintenance schedules, and allow for effective planning and execution of support operations. Shorter durations might be suitable for specific projects, while longer durations (often with option periods) are common for comprehensive base operations or facility management. This duration suggests a substantial and ongoing requirement for the services being provided by Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W9124P19RA037

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Chugach Alaska Corporation

Address: 3800 CENTERPOINT DRIVE, STE 1200, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Tribally Owned Firm, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $90,221,377

Exercised Options: $90,221,377

Current Obligation: $81,504,511

Actual Outlays: $129,847

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 48

Total Subaward Amount: $4,123,870

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline