Melwood Horticultural Training Center awarded $27.3M for facilities support, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,301,504 ($27.3M)

Contractor: Melwood Horticultural Training Center, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2018-01-01

End Date: 2019-06-30

Contract Duration: 545 days

Daily Burn Rate: $50.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF BASE OPERATIONS

Place of Performance

Location: FORT GEORGE G MEADE, ANNE ARUNDEL County, MARYLAND, 20755

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $27.3 million to MELWOOD HORTICULTURAL TRAINING CENTER, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF BASE OPERATIONS Key points: 1. The contract's value of $27.3 million over its period of performance suggests a significant investment in facilities support services. 2. The absence of a competitive bidding process for this contract warrants scrutiny regarding potential price inflation and limited market engagement. 3. Performance context is limited without specific metrics on service delivery quality or efficiency. 4. The contract's focus on facilities support places it within a broad service sector crucial for government operations. 5. The sole-source nature of this award may indicate a lack of readily available alternative providers or a specific, unique requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $27.3 million contract is challenging without detailed service descriptions and performance metrics. However, the lack of competition suggests that taxpayers may not have received the most cost-effective solution. Comparing this to similar facilities support contracts, especially those awarded competitively, would be essential to determine if the pricing is aligned with market rates and if the value delivered is commensurate with the investment.

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 potential vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required services, or in specific circumstances where full and open competition is not feasible. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for multiple companies to bid, potentially limiting price discovery and the government's ability to secure the best possible terms.

Taxpayer Impact: The sole-source award means taxpayers did not benefit from the cost savings that can arise from a competitive bidding process, where vendors vie to offer the lowest price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are likely the personnel at the Department of the Army facilities receiving support services. The services delivered encompass facilities support, which could include maintenance, groundskeeping, and related operational functions. The geographic impact is concentrated in Maryland, where Melwood Horticultural Training Center is located and where the services are presumably rendered. The contract may have implications for the workforce, potentially providing employment opportunities through Melwood Horticultural Training Center.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competitive bidding raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of cost-efficiency.
Sole-source awards can limit transparency and create opportunities for less than optimal pricing.
Absence of clear performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the true value and effectiveness of the services provided.
The significant dollar amount without competition warrants further investigation into the necessity and justification for a sole-source award.

Positive Signals

Melwood Horticultural Training Center may provide valuable services that meet specific needs of the Department of the Army.
The contract supports a specific organization, potentially fulfilling a mission-aligned requirement.
The fixed-price contract type can offer some predictability in costs for the government.

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, ranging from large facility management corporations to smaller, specialized service companies. Government contracts in this area are common and can vary significantly in scope and value. Benchmarking this $27.3 million contract would involve comparing it to other large-scale facilities support contracts awarded by federal agencies, considering the specific services included and the geographic location.

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 indicated in the provided data. The sole-source nature of the award further limits the direct opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract. However, Melwood Horticultural Training Center itself may engage small businesses as suppliers or service providers in its own operations, though this is not explicitly detailed.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer and the relevant program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring Melwood Horticultural Training Center to deliver the specified facilities support services. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award; however, contract award data is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support
Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Groundskeeping Services
Logistics and Support Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification
Lack of transparency in procurement
Potential for non-competitive pricing
Absence of publicly available performance metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $27.3 million to MELWOOD HORTICULTURAL TRAINING CENTER, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF BASE OPERATIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MELWOOD HORTICULTURAL TRAINING CENTER, 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 $27.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-01-01. End: 2019-06-30.

What specific facilities support services are included under this $27.3 million contract?

The provided data indicates the contract is for 'IGF::OT::IGF BASE OPERATIONS' and falls under NAICS code 561210 for Facilities Support Services. While the specific services are not itemized, this category typically includes a broad range of activities such as building maintenance, repair, janitorial services, groundskeeping, pest control, and potentially security or waste management. Without a detailed statement of work, it is difficult to ascertain the precise scope. However, the substantial value suggests a comprehensive suite of services is being provided to support Department of the Army facilities.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis instead of being competed?

The data explicitly states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' and awarded as a 'SOLE SOURCE'. Government agencies typically award sole-source contracts when only one responsible source is available to meet the agency's needs. This could be due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, urgent and compelling circumstances, or specific requirements that only one contractor can fulfill. Without further documentation from the Department of the Army justifying this sole-source determination, it is impossible to definitively state the reason. However, such awards are subject to specific regulatory justifications to ensure they are used appropriately and not to avoid competition.

How does the $27.3 million contract value compare to similar facilities support contracts?

Comparing this $27.3 million contract value requires identifying similar facilities support contracts, ideally with comparable scope, duration, and geographic focus. Given this is a sole-source award for the Department of the Army, direct comparisons might be limited. However, the value is substantial, suggesting a significant operational footprint or a wide array of services. To benchmark effectively, one would look at other large-scale facilities support contracts awarded by DoD or other federal agencies, noting that competitive awards often yield lower prices per unit of service than sole-source awards. The duration of 545 days (approximately 1.5 years) also needs to be factored into any value assessment.

What is the track record of Melwood Horticultural Training Center, Inc. with federal contracts?

Melwood Horticultural Training Center, Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts, as indicated by this award. To assess their track record, one would need to examine past contract performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), any past performance issues, and the types and values of previous contracts awarded to them. A positive track record with consistent performance and adherence to contract terms would be a positive signal, while a history of issues could raise concerns about their ability to successfully execute this current large-value contract.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude ($27.3 million) include the potential for inflated pricing due to the lack of competitive pressure, reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or improve efficiency, and a lack of transparency in the procurement process. Taxpayers may not be receiving the best value for their money. Additionally, if the justification for the sole-source award was weak, it could indicate potential mismanagement or a failure to adequately explore market capabilities. There's also a risk that the government becomes overly reliant on a single provider.

Are there any performance metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with this contract?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics or KPIs for this contract. Typically, such details would be found in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) or Performance Work Statement (PWS). For a facilities support services contract of this value, one would expect to see metrics related to response times for maintenance requests, quality of repairs, grounds maintenance standards (e.g., mowing frequency, landscape appearance), energy efficiency targets, and potentially customer satisfaction. The absence of this information in the summary data makes it difficult to assess the contractor's performance and the overall effectiveness of the services.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5606 DOWER HOUSE RD, UPPER MARLBORO, MD, 20772

Business Categories: AbilityOne Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $29,090,103

Exercised Options: $29,090,103

Current Obligation: $27,301,504

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline