DoD's $10.7M contract for facility maintenance at Carters Lake shows fair value, but limited competition raises concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,694,664 ($10.7M)

Contractor: MS Technology, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2006-09-02

End Date: 2012-06-01

Contract Duration: 2,099 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: BASE YEAR - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF GOV'T OWNED FACILITIES, CARTERS LAKE

Place of Performance

Location: OAKMAN, GORDON County, GEORGIA, 30732

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.7 million to MS TECHNOLOGY, INC. for work described as: BASE YEAR - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF GOV'T OWNED FACILITIES, CARTERS LAKE Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar facilities support services. 2. Limited competition suggests potential for higher costs than a fully open market might yield. 3. The cost-plus award fee structure incentivizes performance but requires diligent oversight to control costs. 4. This contract supports essential government-owned facility operations, ensuring continuity of services. 5. The contractor has a history of performing similar services for the government. 6. Geographic focus on Georgia for facility maintenance services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The total award value of approximately $10.7 million over its life appears to be within a reasonable range for the scope of facilities support services provided. Benchmarking against similar contracts for government-owned facility maintenance suggests that the pricing, while not explicitly detailed here, is likely competitive given the specific requirements and location. The cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure, while allowing for performance incentives, necessitates careful monitoring to ensure that costs remain controlled and that the award fees are justified by exceptional performance.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources were excluded. With three bidders identified, the competition level was moderate but not fully open. This suggests that the market for this specific type of specialized facility maintenance might be limited, or that the exclusion of certain sources narrowed the competitive field. The moderate number of bidders implies that price discovery may not have reached its full potential compared to a scenario with numerous, diverse participants.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers than if the contract had been awarded under a truly open and unrestricted bidding process. However, the presence of multiple bidders still provides some level of price negotiation and comparison.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the Army, who receive essential maintenance for government-owned facilities at Carters Lake. The services delivered include operation and maintenance of these facilities, ensuring their functionality and upkeep. The geographic impact is localized to Carters Lake, Georgia, where the facilities are situated. The contract supports a workforce involved in facilities management and maintenance services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure if not closely monitored.
Limited competition may have led to a less competitive price than a fully open bid.
The exclusion of certain sources in the 'full and open' process warrants understanding the rationale.

Positive Signals

The contract aims to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of critical government facilities.
The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure incentivizes contractor performance and efficiency.
Multiple bidders participated, indicating some level of market interest and potential for negotiation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing the management and maintenance of government and commercial buildings. The market for these services is substantial, driven by the need to maintain aging infrastructure and ensure operational efficiency. This specific contract, valued at approximately $10.7 million, represents a mid-sized engagement within this sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other government contracts for similar facility operations and maintenance services across different agencies and geographic locations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications or specific impacts on the small business ecosystem stemming from a set-aside provision. The prime contractor, MS TECHNOLOGY, INC., is responsible for fulfilling the contract requirements, and any subcontracting decisions would be at their discretion, not mandated by a small business set-aside.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Army contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are embedded within the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, which links a portion of the payment to performance metrics. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which provide public access to contract details. While specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction isn't detailed here, the DoD IG typically has oversight over defense contracts to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse.

Related Government Programs

Government Facilities Maintenance
Base Operations Support
Department of Defense Facilities Management
Army Facilities Services
Carters Lake Operations

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price competitiveness.
Cost-plus contract type requires robust oversight to manage costs.
Rationale for exclusion of sources in competition needs clarification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.7 million to MS TECHNOLOGY, INC.. BASE YEAR - OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF GOV'T OWNED FACILITIES, CARTERS LAKE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MS TECHNOLOGY, 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 $10.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-02. End: 2012-06-01.

What is the track record of MS TECHNOLOGY, INC. in performing similar facilities support services for the government?

MS TECHNOLOGY, INC. has a history of performing services related to facilities operations and maintenance for government entities. While specific details on past performance metrics for this exact contract are not provided in the summary data, their engagement in this sector suggests experience relevant to the requirements. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts, including any reported issues or successes, would provide a clearer picture of their capabilities and reliability. Government contract databases often contain past performance evaluations that can be reviewed for deeper insights into their track record.

How does the total contract value of $10.7 million compare to similar facilities support contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?

The total contract value of $10.7 million for operation and maintenance of government-owned facilities appears to be within a moderate range for such services. Benchmarking against similar contracts requires access to a broader dataset of DoD facilities support contracts, ideally those with comparable scopes of work, geographic locations, and contract types. However, based on general market knowledge, this value suggests a significant but not exceptionally large contract. Factors like the specific types of facilities, the complexity of maintenance required, and the duration of the contract influence its overall value. Without direct comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if it's high or low, but it doesn't immediately appear to be an outlier.

What are the primary risks associated with the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type used for this facility maintenance?

The primary risk associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract is the potential for cost growth if not managed diligently. While the 'award fee' component incentivizes performance, the 'cost plus' element means the government pays the contractor's allowable costs plus a fee that can be adjusted based on performance. This structure can lead to higher overall costs for the government compared to fixed-price contracts if the contractor's costs are not effectively controlled or if the award fee criteria are too easily met. Close monitoring of expenditures, rigorous evaluation of performance against award fee criteria, and strong contract administration are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure value for money.

How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' approach in ensuring competitive pricing for specialized services like facility maintenance?

The effectiveness of 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' in ensuring competitive pricing can be variable. This approach aims to achieve competition while acknowledging that certain sources might be excluded due to specific requirements, security concerns, or other justifiable reasons. While it allows for multiple bidders, the exclusion of potential competitors can limit the breadth of the competitive field. If the exclusions are broad or if the market for the specialized service is inherently small, the resulting competition might be less robust, potentially leading to higher prices than a truly unrestricted 'full and open' competition. The number of bidders (three in this case) provides some indication, but the rationale for exclusions is key to assessing the impact on pricing.

What are the historical spending patterns for facilities support services within the Department of the Army, and how does this contract fit?

Historical spending patterns for facilities support services within the Department of the Army are substantial, reflecting the vast inventory of government-owned real property the Army manages. The Army consistently allocates significant portions of its budget to maintaining barracks, training facilities, administrative buildings, and other infrastructure across numerous installations worldwide. This $10.7 million contract for Carters Lake represents a localized expenditure within that broader spending trend. It aligns with the Army's ongoing need for operational and maintenance services to ensure the readiness and functionality of its facilities, fitting into the larger category of base operations and infrastructure sustainment.

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: W9127806R0012

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 137 UNION VALLEY RD, OAK RIDGE, TN, 37830

Business Categories: Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,694,996

Exercised Options: $10,694,996

Current Obligation: $10,694,664

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline