DoD's $13.3M security contract for Fort Hood awarded to Metropolitan Security Services, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,315,281 ($13.3M)

Contractor: Metropolitan Security Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-08-10

End Date: 2009-08-09

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $36.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 26

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: GULF - FORT HOOD, TX (OPTION 1)

Place of Performance

Location: KILLEEN, BELL County, TEXAS, 76544

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $13.3 million to METROPOLITAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC. for work described as: GULF - FORT HOOD, TX (OPTION 1) Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in base security operations. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive bidding environment. 3. Contract duration of one year indicates a need for ongoing security services. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 points to specialized security guard services. 6. Awarded by the Department of the Army, highlighting a specific military branch's security needs.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed service specifications and performance metrics. The total award amount of $13.3 million for a one-year security guard contract at a large installation like Fort Hood appears within a reasonable range for such services. However, a direct comparison to similar contracts is difficult due to variations in scope, geographic location, and specific security requirements. Further analysis would require understanding the number of personnel, hours, and specialized equipment deployed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 26 bids suggests a robust level of interest and competition for this security services requirement. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider selection of qualified contractors, potentially resulting in better value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The strong competition for this contract likely benefited taxpayers by driving down prices and ensuring the government received competitive offers for essential security services.

Public Impact

Provides essential security guard and patrol services for the U.S. Army's Fort Hood installation. Enhances the safety and security of military personnel, civilian employees, and visitors on base. Supports the operational readiness of Fort Hood by maintaining a secure environment. Contributes to the local economy in the Killeen-Temple, Texas area through employment opportunities for security personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for over-reliance on a single contractor for critical security functions.
Ensuring consistent service quality and adherence to security protocols throughout the contract period.
Managing contractor performance effectively to meet the dynamic security needs of a large military installation.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive process.
Fixed-price contract type aligns incentives for cost control with the contractor.
The Department of the Army's oversight ensures adherence to military security standards.

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, which is characterized by a mix of large established firms and numerous smaller specialized providers. Federal spending in this area is substantial, driven by the need to protect government facilities, personnel, and assets. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per guard hour or cost per square foot protected across similar government installations.

Small Business Impact

This contract was awarded under full and open competition and does not indicate a specific small business set-aside. While Metropolitan Security Services, Inc. may be a small business itself, the award mechanism did not prioritize small businesses. There is no explicit information provided regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses. Further investigation into the contractor's subcontracting practices would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

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. Performance monitoring, quality assurance checks, and invoice approvals are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Fort Hood Base Operations Support
Department of Defense Security Contracts
Army Installation Security Services
Federal Protective Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for service quality degradation if contractor faces cost overruns.
Ensuring adequate staffing levels and personnel qualifications throughout the contract term.
Monitoring contractor performance against stringent security requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $13.3 million to METROPOLITAN SECURITY SERVICES, INC.. GULF - FORT HOOD, TX (OPTION 1)

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 $13.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-08-10. End: 2009-08-09.

What is the track record of Metropolitan Security Services, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Metropolitan Security Services, Inc. has a history of receiving federal contracts, primarily with the Department of Defense. Analyzing their past performance on similar security guard and patrol service contracts is crucial. This would involve reviewing past contract awards, performance evaluations (if publicly available), and any documented instances of contract disputes or terminations. A contractor's prior experience and successful execution of previous federal agreements are strong indicators of their capability to fulfill current requirements. Understanding their historical award values and contract durations can also provide context for the current $13.3 million award over one year.

How does the per-guard cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar services at military installations?

To assess the per-guard cost, we would need to determine the number of guards, hours worked, and the total contract value. Assuming a standard 40-hour work week per guard and an average hourly wage plus overhead and profit, we could estimate a per-guard annual cost. For instance, if the $13.3 million contract supported 100 guards working full-time for 52 weeks, the annual cost per guard would be approximately $133,000. This figure needs to be benchmarked against industry data for security personnel at large military installations, considering factors like prevailing wage rates, required security clearances, and the specific duties performed. Without these details, a precise comparison is not possible, but this estimated figure can serve as a starting point for further analysis.

What are the primary risks associated with this fixed-price contract for security services, and how are they mitigated?

The primary risk with a fixed-price contract is that the contractor may face financial losses if their costs exceed the agreed-upon price, potentially leading to reduced service quality or contractor default. For security services, this could manifest as understaffing, inadequate training, or cutting corners on equipment. Mitigation strategies employed by the government typically include robust performance monitoring by a COR, clearly defined performance standards and metrics in the contract, and regular progress meetings. The government also retains the right to inspect services and enforce contract terms, including penalties for non-performance. The contractor's financial stability and operational capacity are also assessed during the bidding process.

What is the historical spending trend for security guard and patrol services at Fort Hood or similar Army installations?

Analyzing historical spending for security guard and patrol services at Fort Hood and comparable Army installations provides valuable context for the current $13.3 million award. This involves examining contract data over several preceding years to identify trends in contract values, number of awards, and dominant contractors. Significant year-over-year increases or decreases in spending could indicate changes in security requirements, budget allocations, or shifts in contracting strategies. Understanding the typical duration and value of contracts for similar services at installations of comparable size and mission complexity helps determine if the current award is an outlier or consistent with past patterns.

How does the number of bidders (26) influence the potential value for money and price competitiveness of this contract?

A high number of bidders, such as the 26 received for this contract, generally indicates a healthy and competitive market for the services required. This level of competition typically drives down prices as contractors vie for the award, leading to better value for the government. It also increases the likelihood that the government will receive proposals from highly qualified firms, offering a wider range of solutions and potentially innovative approaches. The extensive competition suggests that the government was able to attract a broad base of interested and capable providers, which is a positive sign for achieving a fair and competitive price.

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: $13,315,281

Exercised Options: $13,315,281

Current Obligation: $13,315,281

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911S007D0009

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline