DoD's $178M Missile Defense Support Contract Awarded to Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $177,967,051 ($178.0M)

Contractor: Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-09-28

End Date: 2025-06-16

Contract Duration: 3,549 days

Daily Burn Rate: $50.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF FORT GREELY BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MISSION SUPPORT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: FORT GREELY, SOUTHEAST FAIRBANKS County, ALASKA, 99731

State: Alaska Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $178.0 million to WOLF CREEK FEDERAL SERVICES INC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF FORT GREELY BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MISSION SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust bidding process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Fixed Fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not managed carefully. 3. Duration of over 9 years suggests a long-term need for these critical missile defense services. 4. The contract is for facilities support services, essential for the operational readiness of ballistic missile defense systems. 5. Awarded to a single contractor, highlighting the specialized nature of the services required. 6. The contract value is substantial, reflecting the high stakes of national defense infrastructure.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns. However, the duration and scope suggest a significant investment in national security infrastructure. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure requires careful oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and that the fixed fee adequately compensates the contractor for their efforts without incentivizing excessive spending. Compared to similar large-scale facilities support contracts for defense installations, the pricing appears within a typical range, though a detailed cost analysis would be needed for definitive assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while the competition was open, specific sources may have been excluded for reasons not detailed in the provided data. The presence of 4 bidders suggests a competitive environment, but the exclusion of certain sources could potentially limit the breadth of competition. The level of competition achieved is a positive indicator, likely contributing to a more favorable price discovery process for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive bidding process, even with exclusions, aims to secure the best value for taxpayers by encouraging multiple firms to offer their services. This helps prevent inflated pricing and ensures that the government receives services aligned with market rates.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and national security, ensuring the operational readiness of ballistic missile defense systems. Services delivered include essential facilities support, crucial for maintaining the infrastructure that houses and operates critical defense assets. The geographic impact is concentrated in Alaska (Fort Greely), a key strategic location for missile defense. Workforce implications include the creation or sustainment of jobs related to facilities management, maintenance, and specialized support within the defense sector.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Fixed Fee contract type necessitates vigilant oversight to prevent cost overruns.
Potential for contractor lock-in due to the long contract duration and specialized nature of services.
The exclusion of sources in the competition, while potentially justified, warrants scrutiny to ensure fairness and maximum value.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical support functions could pose risks if performance falters.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a structured and fair bidding process.
The contract addresses a critical national security need, ensuring the readiness of vital defense systems.
Long-term contract duration provides stability and predictability for essential support services.
The contractor, Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc., likely possesses specialized expertise required for this mission.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of the broader defense industry. The market for such services is substantial, driven by the government's continuous need to maintain and operate its vast infrastructure. This specific contract supports Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems, a highly specialized and technologically advanced segment within the defense sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve other large-scale facilities management contracts for military bases or critical infrastructure, often running into hundreds of millions of dollars over several years.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this contract. This suggests that the services required were likely beyond the scope or capacity typically undertaken by small businesses, or that the competition focused on larger, specialized firms. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity to engage the small business ecosystem in supporting critical defense infrastructure.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army and potentially the Department of Defense's Inspector General. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure necessitates robust financial oversight to monitor expenditures and ensure that costs are reasonable and allocable to the contract. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting mechanisms and performance reviews. Accountability measures would be tied to the contractor's adherence to performance standards, delivery schedules, and cost controls outlined in the contract.

Related Government Programs

Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Programs
Fort Greely Operations and Maintenance
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Ballistic Missile Defense Systems Support
Army Garrison Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Overrun Risk (CPFF)
Limited Competition Due to Source Exclusion
Contractor Performance Dependency
Long-Term Contractual Lock-in

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $178.0 million to WOLF CREEK FEDERAL SERVICES INC. IGF::OT::IGF FORT GREELY BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MISSION SUPPORT SERVICES

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 $178.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-09-28. End: 2025-06-16.

What is the track record of Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. in performing similar large-scale defense support contracts?

Wolf Creek Federal Services Inc. has a history of performing various support services for government agencies, including facilities maintenance, logistics, and base operations. Their experience often includes work on military installations, aligning with the requirements of this contract. Assessing their specific track record for missile defense-related facilities support would involve reviewing past performance evaluations, any documented issues or commendations on similar contracts, and their financial stability. A deeper dive into their project portfolio and client feedback would provide a clearer picture of their capabilities and reliability in executing complex, long-term defense contracts.

How does the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) structure compare to other contract types for this type of service, and what are the associated risks?

The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract type reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred plus a predetermined fixed fee representing profit. This structure is often used when the scope of work is not precisely defined or when there is uncertainty in the costs. Compared to Fixed Price contracts, CPFF offers more flexibility but carries a higher risk of cost overruns for the government, as the contractor is incentivized to incur costs to maximize reimbursement, though the fixed fee itself doesn't increase. For facilities support services, especially those tied to critical and evolving defense systems, CPFF can be appropriate for managing unforeseen technical challenges or scope adjustments. However, it demands rigorous government oversight of costs and performance to ensure value for money and prevent contractor inefficiency.

What specific performance metrics are used to evaluate the success of this contract, and how are they monitored?

While specific performance metrics are not detailed in the provided data, contracts of this nature typically include Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to facility uptime, response times for maintenance requests, safety incident rates, energy efficiency targets, and adherence to environmental regulations. Performance is usually monitored through regular progress reports submitted by the contractor, site inspections, and formal performance reviews conducted by the contracting officer's representative (COR). Failure to meet these KPIs can result in contractually defined remedies, such as performance improvement plans, deductions from the fixed fee, or, in severe cases, contract termination.

What is the historical spending trend for missile defense mission support services at Fort Greely, and how does this award compare?

Historical spending data for missile defense mission support services at Fort Greely would reveal the long-term investment in this critical infrastructure. Without specific historical figures, it's difficult to make a direct comparison. However, a contract valued at approximately $178 million over nearly 9.5 years suggests a significant and sustained commitment. This award likely represents a continuation or expansion of previous support efforts, reflecting the ongoing importance of Fort Greely in the nation's missile defense strategy. Analyzing prior contracts for similar services at this location would provide context on whether this award represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending.

What are the potential implications of the 'Exclusion of Sources' clause in the competition for this contract?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' clause indicates that while the competition was generally open, certain potential bidders were deliberately excluded. The reasons for exclusion are not specified but could include factors like national security concerns, past performance issues, or specific technical requirements that only a limited number of firms could meet. While this can streamline the process and focus on highly qualified entities, it potentially limits the breadth of competition. This could mean that taxpayers might not benefit from the lowest possible price that a wider pool of bidders might have offered. It is crucial that the justification for excluding sources is well-documented and serves a legitimate government interest.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9126014R0001

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Chugach Alaska Corporation

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

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Tribally Owned Firm, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $193,124,012

Exercised Options: $193,124,012

Current Obligation: $177,967,051

Actual Outlays: $18,897,635

Subaward Activity

Number of Subawards: 37

Total Subaward Amount: $12,487,974

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline