Department of the Army awarded $10.58M for security guards, with a definitive contract under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,580,649 ($10.6M)

Contractor: Miscellaneous Foreign Awardees

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-11-21

End Date: 2013-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,140 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: {PIIN: W91B4M08C4007} SECURITY GUARDS

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.6 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES for work described as: {PIIN: W91B4M08C4007} SECURITY GUARDS Key points: 1. The contract value of $10.58 million over approximately 6 years suggests a moderate annual spend. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, potentially leading to competitive pricing. 3. The definitive contract type implies a clear scope of work and established terms. 4. Fixed pricing helps mitigate cost overrun risks for the government. 5. The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' warrants further investigation into contractor location and capabilities. 6. The NAICS code 541611 points to administrative and management consulting services, which may not directly align with 'SECURITY GUARDS' if the PSC is more specific.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more specific details on the services provided and the geographic locations covered. The annual spend of approximately $1.76 million ($10.58M / 6 years) is moderate for security services. However, the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' designation raises questions about the typical cost structures and oversight compared to domestic providers. Without comparable contract data for similar security guard services within the Department of the Army or other DoD components, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting that multiple bidders were likely solicited and allowed to participate. This process is generally preferred as it maximizes the pool of potential offerors and encourages competitive pricing. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'full and open' designation implies a robust competitive environment was intended.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition typically benefits taxpayers by driving down prices through market forces, ensuring the government receives the best possible value for its spending.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of the Army installations requiring security guard services. The services delivered are administrative management and general management consulting, specifically related to security guard functions. The geographic impact is tied to the locations of the Army facilities where the guards are deployed. Workforce implications include the employment of security personnel, potentially both foreign and domestic, depending on the awardee's operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' lacks specificity and could obscure the actual contractor's identity, location, and operational capacity.
Potential challenges in oversight and communication may arise due to the foreign nature of the awardee.
The alignment between the NAICS code (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services) and the stated service ('SECURITY GUARDS') needs clarification to ensure accurate categorization and performance expectations.

Positive Signals

The use of 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' indicates an effort to leverage market competition for potentially better pricing and service.
The 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' contract type provides cost certainty for the government, reducing the risk of budget overruns.
The contract duration of approximately 6 years suggests a stable, long-term need for these security services.

Sector Analysis

The market for security guard services is substantial, encompassing both government and commercial sectors. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry, specifically focusing on administrative and management aspects related to security personnel. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large federal contracts for security guard services across various agencies, considering factors like the number of personnel, hours, and geographic scope.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). The award to 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' suggests that the primary contractor is likely not a small business, and subcontracting opportunities for U.S. small businesses would depend on the foreign awardee's procurement practices and any specific subcontracting goals set forth in the contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting officer and administrative contracting officer. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, which penalizes the contractor for cost overruns. Transparency is generally facilitated by the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), where contract awards are reported. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Security Services Contracts
Federal Protective Service Contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule Contracts for Security Services
Army Installation Management Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of specificity in awardee designation ('MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES').
Potential misalignment between NAICS code and service description.
Unknown number of bidders despite 'full and open competition'.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.6 million to MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES. {PIIN: W91B4M08C4007} SECURITY GUARDS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-11-21. End: 2013-09-30.

What is the specific nature of the security guard services provided under this contract, and how does it align with the NAICS code 541611?

The NAICS code 541611, 'Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services,' typically covers establishments primarily engaged in providing operating advice and assistance on matters of management to other businesses and other organizations. This can include areas like strategic and organizational planning, financial planning and control, marketing, human resource management, and production planning and control. The description 'SECURITY GUARDS' suggests a direct service provision. There might be a disconnect or a specific interpretation where the contract is for the *management* of security guard operations or consulting on security guard deployment rather than the direct provision of guards. Clarification is needed to understand if the contractor is managing security personnel, providing consulting on security guard staffing and protocols, or if the NAICS code is a broader categorization for the overall contract vehicle.

Can the 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' designation be further specified to identify the actual contractor and their country of origin?

The designation 'MISCELLANEOUS FOREIGN AWARDEES' is intentionally broad and often used in federal procurement data systems when specific details about the foreign entity are either not readily available, are sensitive, or when the award is made through an intermediary. To identify the specific contractor, one would typically need to access more detailed contract files or databases that might link this PIIN (W91B4M08C4007) to a more precise entity name. Without such access, it's difficult to ascertain the contractor's nationality, operational base, or specific capabilities. This lack of specificity can hinder a thorough assessment of the contractor's track record, financial stability, and potential risks associated with foreign sourcing.

What was the competitive landscape for this contract, and how many bids were received?

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' which signifies that the solicitation was made available to all responsible prospective contractors without restriction. While this indicates a broad outreach, the specific number of bids received is not provided in the summary data. Typically, full and open competitions aim to attract a significant number of offers to foster price competition and ensure the government selects the best value. The absence of the number of bidders makes it harder to definitively assess the intensity of the competition and its potential impact on the final award price. However, the designation itself suggests a more competitive environment than a sole-source or limited competition.

How does the firm-fixed-price contract type mitigate risks for the Department of the Army?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract is designed to provide the government with cost certainty. Under an FFP agreement, the contractor assumes the primary responsibility for all costs incurred and is obligated to complete the work for a predetermined price, regardless of the actual costs experienced. This structure significantly mitigates the risk of cost overruns for the Department of the Army. Unlike cost-reimbursement contracts, the government's financial liability is capped at the agreed-upon price. This encourages the contractor to manage their costs efficiently and effectively to maintain profitability, aligning their incentives with the government's objective of obtaining services within budget.

What is the historical spending pattern for security guard services by the Department of the Army, and how does this contract compare?

Analyzing the historical spending pattern for security guard services by the Department of the Army requires access to comprehensive historical procurement data. This single contract, valued at $10.58 million over approximately six years (ending in 2013), represents an average annual expenditure of roughly $1.76 million for the specific services procured under PIIN W91B4M08C4007. To compare this, one would need to aggregate spending on similar services (e.g., using relevant PSC codes or NAICS codes) across the Army over multiple fiscal years. This would reveal trends in contract values, competition levels, and pricing. Without this broader context, it's difficult to determine if this contract's value is typical, high, or low relative to the Army's overall investment in security guard services.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: MISCELLANEOUS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DR STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Foreign Owned, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,580,649

Exercised Options: $10,580,649

Current Obligation: $10,580,649

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: SUPPLIES OR SERVICES PURSUANT TO FAR 12.102(F)

Cost or Pricing Data: NOT OBTAINED - WAIVED

Timeline