DoD's $10.4M Fort Hood Guard Services Contract Awarded to Metropolitan Security Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,455,411 ($10.5M)

Contractor: Metropolitan Security Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-08-10

End Date: 2008-08-09

Contract Duration: 365 days

Daily Burn Rate: $28.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 26

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: GUARD SERVICES (FORT HOOD, TX)

Place of Performance

Location: KILLEEN, BELL County, TEXAS, 76544

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $10.5 million to METROPOLITAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. for work described as: GUARD SERVICES (FORT HOOD, TX) Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a firm-fixed-price basis, indicating predictable costs for the government. 2. The contract was competed under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 3. A single award was made, potentially limiting broader market engagement. 4. The duration of the contract was one year, allowing for regular reassessment of needs. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 points to specialized security guard services. 6. The contract was awarded in Texas, aligning with the physical location of Fort Hood.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.4 million for one year of guard services at Fort Hood appears to be within a reasonable range for a large military installation. However, without specific details on the scope of services, number of guards, and hours of coverage, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar contracts for security services at other large federal facilities would provide a clearer picture of whether this price reflects competitive market rates for the level of service provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The data indicates 26 bids were received, suggesting a healthy level of interest and competition for this requirement. A higher number of bids generally leads to better price discovery and can result in more favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The robust competition for this contract likely resulted in a more cost-effective outcome for taxpayers, as multiple companies vied to provide the required security services at the best possible price.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the Department of Defense and personnel stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, who receive enhanced security. The contract ensures the provision of essential security guard and patrol services to protect military assets and personnel. The geographic impact is localized to Fort Hood, Texas, ensuring the security of this specific military installation. The contract supports the security services workforce, likely employing numerous guards and supervisory personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the quality of services rendered.
The contract was awarded as a single award, which may limit opportunities for smaller or specialized security firms to participate in future.
The firm-fixed-price contract type, while offering cost certainty, could potentially lead to less flexibility if service requirements change significantly during the contract period.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through full and open competition with a significant number of bids (26), indicating a competitive marketplace.
The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost predictability for the Department of Defense.
The contract addresses a critical need for security at a major military installation.

Sector Analysis

The security services industry is a significant sector within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services market. This contract falls under the security guards and patrol services sub-sector (NAICS 561612). The market is characterized by a mix of large, established security firms and numerous smaller, specialized providers. Federal contracts for guard services are common across various agencies, particularly those managing large physical installations like military bases, federal buildings, and research facilities. Spending in this sector is driven by national security needs, facility protection, and regulatory requirements.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). While there is no explicit information on subcontracting requirements, the absence of a small business set-aside suggests that the prime contractor, Metropolitan Security Services, Inc., may not be obligated to subcontract a specific portion of the work to small businesses. This could limit the direct participation of small businesses in fulfilling this particular contract, although they might compete for future, smaller security contracts or provide services to the prime contractor independently.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army at Fort Hood. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and invoice verification are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support Services
Physical Security Services
Federal Law Enforcement Support
Guard Services for Government Facilities
Department of Defense Security Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for service quality degradation under fixed-price contract if not closely monitored.
Limited visibility into specific performance metrics from provided data.
Absence of small business set-aside may limit direct participation opportunities for SMBs.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $10.5 million to METROPOLITAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC.. GUARD SERVICES (FORT HOOD, TX)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is METROPOLITAN SECURITY 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 $10.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-08-10. End: 2008-08-09.

What is the track record of Metropolitan Security Services, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly for guard services?

Metropolitan Security Services, Inc. has a history of federal contracting, as indicated by this award. To fully assess their track record, a deeper dive into their contract history with the federal government would be necessary. This would involve examining past performance evaluations, any documented disputes or contract terminations, and the types and values of previous contracts they have held. Understanding their experience with similar-sized contracts and security requirements at military installations would provide crucial context for evaluating their capability and reliability in fulfilling the Fort Hood guard services contract.

How does the awarded amount of $10.4 million compare to similar guard service contracts at other large military installations?

A direct comparison of the $10.4 million award for one year of guard services at Fort Hood to similar contracts requires access to data on contracts with comparable scope, duration, and service levels at other large military installations. Factors such as the number of personnel required, hours of operation, specific security protocols, and geographic location can significantly influence pricing. While $10.4 million for a year of comprehensive security at a major base is substantial, its value-for-money can only be truly assessed by benchmarking against contracts for similar services at comparable installations. Without this comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if the price is high, low, or appropriate.

What are the primary risks associated with this firm-fixed-price contract for guard services?

The primary risk associated with a firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract for guard services is the potential for the contractor to cut corners on service quality to maintain profitability if costs increase unexpectedly or if the initial pricing was too aggressive. While FFP provides cost certainty for the government, it places the cost risk on the contractor. If the contractor underestimates labor costs, overtime, or other operational expenses, they may be incentivized to reduce staffing levels, training, or supervision, potentially impacting the effectiveness of the security services. Conversely, the government risks paying a premium if the contractor's initial bid was overly conservative and they achieve unexpectedly high profit margins.

How effective are guard services contracts in enhancing overall base security at installations like Fort Hood?

Guard services contracts are a critical component of overall base security at installations like Fort Hood, providing a visible deterrent and immediate response capability. They supplement military police and other security forces by covering routine patrols, access control, monitoring surveillance systems, and responding to minor incidents. The effectiveness hinges on several factors: the quality of personnel hired and trained by the contractor, the clarity and comprehensiveness of the contract's performance work statement (PWS), and the rigor of government oversight. When well-executed and properly managed, these contracts significantly contribute to maintaining a secure environment, protecting personnel and assets, and allowing military police to focus on more specialized security missions.

What has been the historical spending trend for guard services at Fort Hood or similar Department of the Army installations?

Analyzing historical spending trends for guard services at Fort Hood or similar Department of the Army installations would reveal patterns in contract values, durations, and contractor awards over time. This data can indicate whether spending has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, potentially influenced by changes in security requirements, base population, or budget allocations. Understanding these trends helps in forecasting future needs and budgets, identifying potential cost efficiencies, and assessing the consistency of security service provision. Without specific historical data for Fort Hood, comparisons to broader Army spending patterns on security services could offer insights into resource allocation priorities.

What are the implications of awarding this contract under 'full and open competition' with 26 bids for future security service procurements?

Awarding this contract under 'full and open competition' with a substantial number of bids (26) has positive implications for future security service procurements. It signals to the market that the Department of Defense actively seeks competitive bids for such services, potentially encouraging more companies to prepare and submit proposals for subsequent contracts. A robustly competed contract often leads to better pricing and service quality due to market forces. This success can serve as a benchmark, demonstrating that competitive processes are viable and effective for acquiring security services, potentially influencing how similar requirements are structured and competed across the agency.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Guards and Patrol Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W911S006R0020

Offers Received: 26

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 694 MANUFACTURERS RD, CHATTANOOGA, TN, 03

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,455,411

Exercised Options: $10,455,411

Current Obligation: $10,455,411

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911S007D0009

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline