DoD's $47.6M facilities support contract awarded to Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. for Alabama operations

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $47,574,912 ($47.6M)

Contractor: Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2021-05-31

End Date: 2022-08-31

Contract Duration: 457 days

Daily Burn Rate: $104.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 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 $47.6 million to WOLF CREEK FEDERAL SERVICES INC for work described as: PM/SO AND SO UPGRADE LABOR AND ODC Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. Firm Fixed Price contract type suggests predictable costs for the government. 3. Contract duration of 457 days indicates a medium-term service requirement. 4. Services provided fall under Facilities Support Services, a common government need. 5. Awarded to a single contractor, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies. 6. No small business set-aside or subcontracting noted, potentially limiting small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $47.6 million for a 457-day period represents a significant investment in facilities support. Without comparable sole-source contracts for similar services and scope in the same geographic region, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the lack of competition may have led to a higher price than could have been achieved through a competitive process. Benchmarking against industry standards for facilities management services would be necessary for a more robust evaluation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor is capable of providing the required services, or in specific emergency situations. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for price discovery through bidding, which could potentially result in a higher cost to the government compared to a fully competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without a competitive process, there is less assurance that the government secured the best possible price for these essential facilities support services.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from essential facilities support services, ensuring operational readiness. Services likely include maintenance, repair, and management of government facilities in Alabama. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alabama, supporting federal operations within the state. The contract supports the workforce employed by Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. in Alabama.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure, potentially impacting cost-effectiveness.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
No indication of small business participation or subcontracting opportunities.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Contract addresses a critical need for facilities support services.
Award to an established contractor may indicate a known capability.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services, categorized under NAICS code 561210, is a broad sector encompassing a wide range of services essential for the operation and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure. This sector is characterized by a mix of large, established providers and smaller, specialized firms. Government contracts in this area are substantial, reflecting the extensive real estate holdings of federal agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without specific service details, but the overall market for facilities management is robust, with significant government outlays annually.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have been set aside for small businesses, nor is there any explicit mention of subcontracting requirements. This suggests that larger businesses were likely the primary focus or sole provider for this requirement. The absence of small business participation could limit opportunities for smaller firms to contribute to this federal spending and may not fully leverage the agility and specialized capabilities that small businesses often bring to service contracts.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures would be defined by the contract's performance work statement and terms. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award, with less public information available compared to competed contracts. The Inspector General's office for the Department of Defense may have jurisdiction for audits and investigations if concerns arise regarding waste, fraud, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support Services
Logistics and Facilities Management
Government Property Management
Maintenance, Repair, and Operations (MRO)

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about potential lack of competition and cost-effectiveness.
Absence of small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements may limit small business participation.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data hinders value assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $47.6 million to WOLF CREEK FEDERAL SERVICES INC. 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 $47.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-05-31. End: 2022-08-31.

What is the track record of Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. in performing similar facilities support contracts for the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

Assessing the track record of Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. requires a review of their past performance on similar contracts. This would involve examining contract databases for awards to the company, looking at contract values, durations, and the specific services rendered. Performance evaluations, if publicly available, would provide crucial insights into their ability to meet requirements, manage costs, and adhere to schedules. A history of successful contract completion, positive performance reviews, and minimal disputes or terminations would indicate a reliable contractor. Conversely, a pattern of poor performance, contract disputes, or terminations would raise concerns about their capability to execute this current $47.6 million contract effectively.

How does the awarded price of $47.6 million compare to market rates for similar facilities support services in Alabama?

A direct comparison of the awarded price to market rates for similar facilities support services in Alabama is challenging without detailed service specifications and a clear understanding of the scope of work. However, given the sole-source nature of this award, there is a risk that the price may not reflect the most competitive market rate. To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify comparable commercial contracts or government contracts awarded competitively in the same geographic region for similar services (e.g., building maintenance, groundskeeping, utility management, security). Analyzing the price per square foot or price per service unit against industry averages would provide a more objective assessment of value for money. The firm fixed-price nature offers cost certainty but does not inherently guarantee the lowest possible price.

What specific justification was provided for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis instead of through full and open competition?

The justification for a sole-source award typically falls under specific exceptions to full and open competition, such as the availability of only one responsible source, or in circumstances where urgency or national security dictates such an approach. For this Department of the Army contract, the justification would need to clearly articulate why other qualified contractors could not provide the required facilities support services. Common reasons include unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or the need for seamless continuation of services from an incumbent provider. Without access to the official Justification and Approval (J&A) document, it is difficult to ascertain the precise rationale. However, sole-source awards inherently reduce competition, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and service level agreements (SLAs) associated with this contract, and how is performance being monitored?

The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this facilities support contract are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, such contracts would include metrics related to response times for maintenance requests, preventative maintenance completion rates, facility uptime, energy efficiency targets, and customer satisfaction. Performance monitoring would likely be conducted by a government contracting officer's representative (COR) or a designated technical point of contact. This involves regular reviews of contractor performance reports, site inspections, and potentially user feedback mechanisms. The effectiveness of oversight and the clarity of KPIs/SLAs are crucial for ensuring the government receives the intended value and quality of services.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities support services by the Department of the Army in Alabama, and how does this contract fit within that trend?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for facilities support services by the Department of the Army in Alabama would involve examining contract data over several fiscal years. This would reveal whether spending in this category has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing, and whether contracts have predominantly been competed or awarded sole-source. This $47.6 million contract, awarded in May 2021 for a period extending to August 2022, represents a significant expenditure for a single contract. Understanding if this is a typical contract size and duration for facilities support in the region, or if it represents an anomaly, provides context. A trend of sole-source awards in this area might suggest systemic issues with market research or competition planning within the agency.

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: W9124P21R0010

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

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: $54,614,062

Exercised Options: $54,608,704

Current Obligation: $47,574,912

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 23

Total Subaward Amount: $1,512,001

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline