DoD's $45.6M Facilities Support Services Contract Awarded to Lockheed Martin for Georgia Operations

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $45,595,890 ($45.6M)

Contractor: Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-02-06

End Date: 2013-07-31

Contract Duration: 2,002 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Defense

Official Description: BASE PERIOD - LABOR TAS::21 2020::TAS

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, FULTON County, GEORGIA, 30310, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $45.6 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, LLC for work described as: BASE PERIOD - LABOR TAS::21 2020::TAS Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in maintaining critical facilities. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for this service. 3. The contract's duration and cost structure warrant scrutiny for long-term value. 4. Performance context is crucial to understand the effectiveness of these facilities support services. 5. This contract falls within the broader Defense sector's extensive service procurement landscape.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract requires detailed comparison with similar facilities support services across the Department of Defense. The Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) pricing structure, while common, can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not meticulously managed. Without specific performance metrics and cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively assess if the $45.6 million base period represents excellent value for money. Further analysis of the contractor's historical performance on similar contracts and the efficiency of service delivery would be necessary.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple qualified vendors had the opportunity to bid. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition. While full and open competition is generally preferred for ensuring fair pricing and access to the best solutions, the specific number of bidders can influence the intensity of price negotiation and the range of innovative approaches considered.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the potential for competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors, which can drive down costs and improve service quality.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and its personnel stationed in Georgia, who rely on well-maintained facilities for operational readiness. Services delivered include a broad range of facilities support, likely encompassing maintenance, repair, and operational services for military installations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Georgia, supporting the infrastructure of specific Army installations within the state. Workforce implications may include the direct employment of personnel by Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, as well as indirect support for the local economy in Georgia.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the facilities support services sector, a critical component of the broader defense industry. This sector encompasses a wide array of services essential for maintaining government and military installations, including maintenance, repair, operations, and logistics. The defense industry is characterized by large, complex contracts often awarded through competitive processes, with significant players like Lockheed Martin dominating many segments. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale facilities management contracts within the Department of Defense and other federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'sb' (small business) flag is false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting goals. This suggests that the prime contract was likely awarded to a large business, and the extent of small business involvement would depend on Lockheed Martin's subcontracting strategy, which is not detailed here. This could limit opportunities for small businesses to participate in supporting critical defense infrastructure.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract's terms and conditions, including performance standards, reporting requirements, and potential penalties for non-compliance. Transparency is often facilitated through contract award databases and public reporting mechanisms, though detailed operational oversight information may be limited. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, facilities-support-services, cost-plus-fixed-fee, full-and-open-competition, lockheed-martin, georgia, large-contract, service-contract, operational-readiness

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $45.6 million to LOCKHEED MARTIN INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, LLC. BASE PERIOD - LABOR TAS::21 2020::TAS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LOCKHEED MARTIN INTEGRATED SYSTEMS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $45.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-02-06. End: 2013-07-31.

What is Lockheed Martin's track record with similar facilities support contracts for the Department of Defense?

Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, LLC, as a major defense contractor, possesses a broad track record in managing complex support services for government agencies, including the Department of Defense. While specific details on their performance for facilities support services in Georgia under this particular contract (awarded in 2008) are not fully detailed in the provided data, the company's extensive experience suggests a capacity to handle large-scale operations. Historical performance on similar contracts would typically be assessed through contract performance reports (CPARs), which evaluate factors like technical performance, cost control, schedule adherence, and management. A thorough review would involve examining these reports for this and comparable contracts to gauge their consistency in delivering services effectively and managing costs within budgetary constraints.

How does the $45.6 million base period cost compare to similar facilities support contracts?

Comparing the $45.6 million base period cost requires a detailed analysis of similar facilities support contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies for installations of comparable size and scope. Factors influencing cost include the geographic location (labor rates, cost of living), the specific services included (e.g., janitorial, HVAC, groundskeeping, minor repairs), the duration of the base period, and the contract type (Cost Plus Fixed Fee in this case). Without access to a comprehensive database of comparable contract values and service scopes, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, for a multi-year base period supporting significant military infrastructure, this figure appears within a plausible range for large-scale support services, though its value-for-money aspect hinges on the efficiency and effectiveness of the services rendered.

What are the primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude?

The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) contract of this magnitude, such as the $45.6 million base period for facilities support services, revolve around cost control and contractor incentive. In a CPFF structure, the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fixed fee representing profit. The main risk is that the contractor may have less incentive to control costs rigorously compared to fixed-price contracts, as cost overruns are generally covered. This can lead to the government paying more than anticipated if the contractor does not manage expenses efficiently. Effective oversight, detailed cost accounting, and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives good value.

How effective has this contract been in ensuring the operational readiness of DoD facilities in Georgia?

Assessing the effectiveness of this contract in ensuring operational readiness requires access to performance data that is not included in the provided summary. Effectiveness would typically be measured by metrics such as facility uptime, response times for maintenance requests, completion rates of preventive maintenance schedules, and overall condition assessments of the facilities. The contract's duration (base period ending in 2013) suggests that historical performance data should be available through government performance evaluation systems (like CPARS) or internal DoD reporting. Without this specific performance data, it is impossible to definitively state how effective the contract has been in meeting its objectives of maintaining operational readiness.

What has been the historical spending pattern for facilities support services at this specific DoD installation or command?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award for facilities support services. To understand historical spending patterns for facilities support services at this specific DoD installation or command, one would need to examine a series of contracts awarded over time. This would involve looking at previous contracts for similar services at the same location, potentially with different contractors, and analyzing their values, durations, and scopes. Additionally, it would be beneficial to compare spending on facilities support services with overall budgets for the installation or command to understand its relative importance. This broader analysis would reveal trends in spending, identify periods of significant investment or cost-saving measures, and provide context for the $45.6 million award.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation ServicesFacilities Support ServicesFacilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: W911SE06R0013

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Lockheed Martin Corp (UEI: 834951691)

Address: 6801 ROCKLEDGE DR, BETHESDA, MD, 20817

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $57,359,247

Exercised Options: $46,794,483

Current Obligation: $45,595,890

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911SE07D0039

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline

Start Date: 2008-02-06

Current End Date: 2013-07-31

Potential End Date: 2013-07-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2016-10-17

More Contracts from Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, LLC

View all Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems, LLC federal contracts →

Other Department of Defense Contracts

View all Department of Defense contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending