Army awards $17.3M for energy studies, with a 5-year performance period, to Johnson Controls

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,321,679 ($17.3M)

Contractor: Johnson Controls Government Systems, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-04-18

End Date: 2026-09-30

Contract Duration: 8,931 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200212!000360!2100!DA10 !U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND !DADA1099D0053 !A!N! !N!0004 !20020418!20020930!076020440!076020440!006092860!N!JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SY!507 E MICHIGAN STREET !MILWAUKEE !WI!53201!26784!029!48!FORT SAM HOUSTON !BEXAR !TEXAS !+000003353968!N!N!000000000000!B543!ENERGY STUDIES !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !235990!E! !5!B!M!A!D!D!20200930!B! ! !N!Z!D!N!J!1!001!N!1B!C!N!Z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !A!A!A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! !W81JXP!0001!

Place of Performance

Location: SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR County, TEXAS, 78234

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $17.3 million to JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, LLC for work described as: 200212!000360!2100!DA10 !U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND !DADA1099D0053 !A!N! !N!0004 !20020418!20020930!076020440!076020440!006092860!N!JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SY!507 E MICHIGAN STREET !MILWAUKEE !WI!53201!26784!029!48!FORT SAM HOUSTON !BEXAR… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for energy studies, indicating a focus on operational efficiency and resource management. 2. The contract duration of over 24 years (8931 days) is exceptionally long, raising questions about long-term planning and flexibility. 3. Awarded to a single vendor, Johnson Controls, suggesting potential for limited competition or specialized expertise. 4. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 5. The contract is a Delivery Order under a larger contract vehicle, implying it's part of a broader procurement strategy. 6. The funding agency is the Department of Defense, highlighting the strategic importance of energy management within military operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award amount of $17.3 million for energy studies over a period spanning more than two decades is difficult to benchmark without more specific details on the scope of work. The long duration suggests a potential for cost escalation or a need for significant adaptation over time. Comparing this to typical energy study contracts, which are often shorter-term and project-specific, this contract's length is unusual and warrants further investigation into its value proposition and cost-effectiveness over its extended life cycle.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple bidders were likely considered. However, the data specifies this as a 'Delivery Order,' which could mean it was placed against an existing Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. The number of bidders for the original IDIQ or this specific delivery order is not detailed, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a competitive process was initiated.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can lead to better pricing and service quality. However, the extremely long duration of this contract may offset some of these benefits if market conditions or technological needs change significantly over its lifespan.

Public Impact

The U.S. Army Medical Command is the primary beneficiary, likely seeking to improve energy efficiency and reduce operational costs within its facilities. Services delivered include energy studies, which could encompass assessments of energy consumption, identification of conservation opportunities, and development of renewable energy strategies. The geographic impact is centered around Fort Sam Houston, Texas, where the contract is managed, but the studies may have broader implications for Army facilities nationwide. Workforce implications are not immediately clear but could involve specialized energy consultants and potentially impact facility management personnel within the Army.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The exceptionally long contract duration (over 24 years) raises concerns about adaptability to changing energy technologies and market conditions, potentially leading to suboptimal outcomes or increased costs over time.
Lack of specific details on the scope of 'energy studies' makes it difficult to assess the true value and necessity of such a long-term commitment.
The contract is a delivery order, which might obscure the full competitive landscape and pricing details compared to a standalone contract.
The specific nature of the 'energy studies' and their direct impact on operational efficiency or cost savings are not clearly defined.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust initial selection process.
The Firm Fixed Price contract type transfers cost risk to the contractor, providing budget certainty for the government.
The contract is managed by the U.S. Army Medical Command, indicating a focus on critical infrastructure and operational support.
Johnson Controls is a known entity in government contracting, potentially bringing established expertise in energy management solutions.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader energy services sector, specifically focusing on energy studies and management for government facilities. The market for energy efficiency and management services is substantial, driven by government mandates for sustainability and cost reduction. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish due to the unique, extremely long duration of this contract. Typically, energy studies are project-based and shorter in duration, making this an outlier in terms of commitment.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions or subcontracting requirements for this contract. As a delivery order under a potentially larger vehicle, small business participation would depend on the terms of the parent contract and the specific solicitation for this order. Without further information, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem remains unclear.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the U.S. Army Medical Command, which issued the delivery order. Accountability measures are inherent in the Firm Fixed Price structure, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency is limited by the nature of the data provided; detailed performance metrics, progress reports, and specific study outcomes are not publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Energy Management Programs
Federal Energy Efficiency Initiatives
Army Facilities Management
Energy Conservation Services Contracts
Government Building Operations and Maintenance

Risk Flags

Unusually long contract duration
Vague scope of 'energy studies'
Potential for cost overruns or uncompetitive pricing over time
Difficulty in benchmarking value due to duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $17.3 million to JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, LLC. 200212!000360!2100!DA10 !U.S. ARMY MEDICAL COMMAND !DADA1099D0053 !A!N! !N!0004 !20020418!20020930!076020440!076020440!006092860!N!JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SY!507 E MICHIGAN STREET !MILWAUKEE !WI!53201!26784!029!48!FORT SAM HOUSTON !BEXAR !TEXAS !+000003353968!N!N!000000000000!B543!ENERGY STUDIES !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !235990!E! !5!B!M!A!D!D!20200930!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JOHNSON CONTROLS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $17.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-04-18. End: 2026-09-30.

What is the specific scope of 'energy studies' to be conducted under this contract, and how will their success be measured over such a long performance period?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of 'energy studies.' Typically, such studies involve assessing energy consumption patterns, identifying opportunities for efficiency improvements, evaluating renewable energy integration, and recommending cost-saving measures. Measuring success over a 24+ year period is highly unusual for studies alone. It suggests a potential for ongoing monitoring, phased implementation of recommendations, or a long-term energy management partnership. Without further details, it's difficult to ascertain the precise deliverables and performance metrics that would remain relevant and effective for such an extended duration. This extended timeline might imply a need for adaptive management and periodic re-evaluation of objectives and methodologies.

How does the $17.3 million award compare to typical costs for similar energy study contracts, considering the extended duration?

Direct comparison is challenging due to the contract's exceptionally long duration (over 24 years). Most energy study contracts are project-based and significantly shorter, often ranging from a few months to a few years, with costs varying widely based on scope and complexity. A $17.3 million total award spread over more than two decades suggests a relatively low annual expenditure, potentially indicating a focus on long-term strategic planning, continuous monitoring, or phased implementation rather than intensive, short-term analysis. If the contract involves ongoing services beyond initial studies, such as implementation oversight or performance verification, the value proposition might be more justifiable. However, without a clear breakdown of services and deliverables tied to specific timeframes, assessing value-for-money against typical benchmarks is difficult.

What are the potential risks associated with a Firm Fixed Price contract that spans over two decades?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract spanning over two decades carries significant risks, primarily related to market volatility and technological obsolescence. For the contractor, unforeseen increases in labor, material, or energy costs over such a long period could erode profit margins or lead to financial distress if not adequately hedged. For the government, the FFP structure might lock in prices that become uncompetitive as market rates change or new, more cost-effective technologies emerge. Furthermore, the contractor might have less incentive to innovate or proactively suggest cost-saving measures if they are guaranteed a fixed price regardless of efficiency gains. This extended duration increases the likelihood of unforeseen circumstances that could impact the contractor's ability or willingness to fulfill the contract's long-term obligations.

Given the 'full and open competition' designation, why was this awarded as a Delivery Order, and what does this imply about the original contract vehicle?

The designation as a 'Delivery Order' indicates that this award was made under a pre-existing Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar type of multiple-award contract vehicle. IDIQ contracts are often established through full and open competition to procure a range of supplies or services over a period. Individual delivery orders are then issued against this umbrella contract as needs arise. This approach allows for flexibility and streamlined procurement. The fact that it was a delivery order suggests that the initial competition was for the IDIQ contract itself, and this specific order represents a tasking under that larger framework. The competition for this particular delivery order might have been limited to the awardees of the parent IDIQ, even if the parent contract was initially competed broadly.

What is Johnson Controls Government Systems' track record with similar long-term energy management contracts for the federal government?

Johnson Controls Government Systems (JCGS) has a significant track record in providing energy efficiency and facility management solutions to government entities, including the federal government. They often engage in performance contracting, which involves upfront investment in energy conservation measures with repayment tied to achieved savings. While JCGS is experienced, contracts with a performance period exceeding 24 years are exceptionally rare, even for comprehensive energy management. Their typical contracts might range from 10-20 years for large-scale projects. The specific details of their past performance on contracts of this extreme duration, particularly for 'energy studies' as the primary stated service, are not readily available in the public domain, making a direct comparison difficult.

How does the geographic location of the award (Fort Sam Houston, Texas) influence the nature or execution of these energy studies?

The contract's management location at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, suggests that the initial focus or administrative oversight for these energy studies will be based there. This could mean that the studies will heavily involve assessing the energy infrastructure and consumption patterns of facilities within Fort Sam Houston or the broader U.S. Army Medical Command presence in Texas. However, the nature of 'energy studies' often allows for remote analysis and consultation, meaning the actual fieldwork or data collection could occur at various Army installations. The Texas location might also imply a focus on energy challenges or opportunities prevalent in that region, such as solar energy potential or specific climate-related efficiency needs, but the contract's broad scope suggests it's not limited solely to that geographic area.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Utilities › Electric Power Generation, Transmission and Distribution › Electric Power Distribution

Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 507 E. MICHIGAN ST., MILWAUKEE, WI, 53202

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DADA1099D0053

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline