DoD's $27M food service contract for Georgia facility shows fair value with a slight per-unit cost premium
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $26,953,948 ($27.0M)
Contractor: Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2017-08-11
End Date: 2018-05-31
Contract Duration: 293 days
Daily Burn Rate: $92.0K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF. BLDG 3500 - CLIN 11AF - 5001-6000
Place of Performance
Location: FORT BENNING, CHATTAHOOCHEE County, GEORGIA, 31905
State: Georgia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $27.0 million to GEORGIA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF. BLDG 3500 - CLIN 11AF - 5001-6000 Key points: 1. The contract was awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment. 2. While the per-unit cost is slightly above the benchmark, overall value appears reasonable given the service scope. 3. The fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. Performance duration of 293 days is standard for this type of service delivery. 5. The contract falls within the Food Service Contractors NAICS code, aligning with industry standards. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, indicating a focus on broader market participation.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract's total value of approximately $27 million for food services appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar government contracts. The fixed-price nature of the award provides cost certainty. However, the per-unit cost analysis indicates a slight premium compared to market rates, suggesting potential for further cost optimization.
Cost Per Unit: The per-unit cost of $449.24 is approximately 5% higher than the benchmark of $427.61 for comparable food service contracts.
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The data does not specify the number of bidders, but this procurement method generally fosters competitive pricing and allows the government to select the best value offer. The absence of restrictions suggests a healthy market for these services.
Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically drives down prices through market forces, ensuring the government receives competitive rates for its procurements.
Public Impact
Military personnel and staff at the Department of Defense facility in Georgia will benefit from consistent and reliable food services. The contract ensures the delivery of essential catering and food preparation services. The geographic impact is localized to the specific DoD facility in Georgia. The contract supports jobs within the food service industry, potentially including local hires in Georgia.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Slightly elevated per-unit cost compared to market benchmarks could indicate room for negotiation or efficiency gains.
- Lack of specific bidder count in the provided data makes it difficult to fully assess the intensity of competition.
- The contract's duration is relatively short, which might lead to frequent re-competition and associated administrative costs.
Positive Signals
- Awarded via full and open competition, maximizing potential for competitive pricing.
- Fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty and limits government risk.
- Contract aligns with standard industry codes (NAICS 722310), indicating a well-defined service scope.
Sector Analysis
The food service industry is a significant sector within government contracting, encompassing a wide range of services from cafeteria operations to large-scale catering. This contract, valued at approximately $27 million, falls within the typical range for facility-based food service provision. Benchmarking against similar contracts reveals that while pricing is generally competitive, there can be variations based on location, specific service requirements, and the intensity of competition.
Small Business Impact
This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it indicate specific subcontracting goals for small businesses. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall value from the broader market. While this approach can be efficient, it may limit direct opportunities for small businesses to participate as prime contractors on this specific award.
Oversight & Accountability
The contract is subject to standard federal procurement oversight mechanisms. As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, its execution would be monitored by the Department of the Army. Further oversight could be provided by the Department of Defense's Inspector General if performance issues or financial irregularities arise. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Defense Food Service Contracts
- General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule Contracts for Food Services
- Other Agency Food and Catering Services Contracts
Risk Flags
- Potential for slightly elevated per-unit cost.
- Lack of detailed competition metrics.
- Contractor past performance not detailed.
- Short contract duration may lead to frequent re-competition.
Tags
department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, food-service, georgia, full-and-open-competition, firm-fixed-price, delivery-order, naics-722310, facility-support, contract-value-20-50m
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $27.0 million to GEORGIA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCY. IGF::OT::IGF. BLDG 3500 - CLIN 11AF - 5001-6000
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is GEORGIA VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCY.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $27.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2017-08-11. End: 2018-05-31.
What is the historical spending trend for food services by the Department of the Army in Georgia?
Analyzing historical spending data for food services by the Department of the Army specifically within Georgia requires access to detailed federal procurement databases. However, general trends indicate consistent and substantial investment in food services across military installations nationwide to support personnel. Spending levels can fluctuate based on operational tempo, base population, and specific contract awards. Without granular data for this specific region and service category, it's difficult to provide precise historical figures. However, the $27 million awarded in this instance represents a significant, single-award commitment for the specified period, suggesting a substantial need for these services at the facility.
How does the contractor's past performance on similar contracts compare to this award?
The provided data does not include specific details on the contractor's past performance history. To assess this, one would typically review performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) for previous contracts held by Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency or its principals. A strong track record of on-time delivery, quality service, and adherence to contract terms would indicate a lower risk for this current award. Conversely, a history of performance issues could raise concerns about the reliability and effectiveness of the contractor in fulfilling the current food service requirements.
What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) for this food service contract, and how are they measured?
Key performance indicators (KPIs) for a food service contract typically revolve around food quality, safety, timeliness of service, customer satisfaction, and adherence to dietary guidelines or specific menu requirements. While the provided data doesn't list explicit KPIs, they are usually detailed within the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS). Measurement methods often involve regular inspections, customer feedback surveys, audits of food safety compliance (e.g., health code adherence), and tracking of service delivery schedules. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in contractually defined remedies, such as price reductions or corrective action plans.
What is the potential impact of the fixed-price contract type on service quality and innovation?
A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type, like the one awarded here, establishes a ceiling price that is not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience. This provides significant cost certainty for the government. For service quality, it incentivizes the contractor to perform efficiently to maximize profit. However, it can sometimes disincentivize innovation or going 'above and beyond' contractual requirements, as any additional effort not explicitly covered might not be compensated. The contractor is motivated to meet the defined scope effectively and efficiently within the agreed price.
Are there any specific risks associated with relying on a single contractor for food services at this facility?
Relying on a single contractor for essential services like food provision introduces several risks. Foremost is the risk of service disruption due to contractor default, financial instability, labor disputes, or unforeseen events (e.g., natural disasters). If the contractor underperforms, the government's options might be limited to contract remedies or initiating a potentially lengthy re-procurement process, leaving the facility without adequate services in the interim. Dependence also reduces leverage for negotiating improved service levels or pricing beyond the initial contract terms.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Accommodation and Food Services › Special Food Services › Food Service Contractors
Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: W911SF14R0004
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Parent Company: State of Georgia
Address: 5238 ROYAL WOODS, TUCKER, GA, 30084
Business Categories: Category Business, Government, U.S. National Government, Not Designated a Small Business, U.S. Regional/State Government
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $26,953,948
Exercised Options: $26,953,948
Current Obligation: $26,953,948
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: W911SF16D0004
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2017-08-11
Current End Date: 2018-05-31
Potential End Date: 2018-05-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2022-02-17
More Contracts from Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency
- 200312!000945!2100!BK03 !ACA, Fort Benning !dabk0303c0018 !A!N! !Y! !20030718!20130630!083957956!083957956!083957956!n!labor, Georgia Department of !5238 Royal Woods Pkwy STE !tucker !ga!30084!30760!215!13!fort Benning !muscogee !georgia !+000004805892!n!n!000278197304!s203!food Services !S1 !services !1000!NOT Discernable or Classified !722310!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!j!2!006!b! !C!N!Z! ! !N!Z!N! ! ! ! ! !a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! ! ! !dabk03!0001! ! — $496.1M (Department of Defense)
- Full Food Service FT Gordon GA Dining Facilities — $90.5M (Department of Defense)
- Full Food Services — $81.1M (Department of Defense)
- Food Services, Fletc Glynco Campus, GA: the Contractor Shall Provide ALL Labor, Supplies, Materials, Equipment and Supervision Necessary to Serve Three Meals in Bldg. 75 and Lunch in Bldg. 260 — $75.3M (Department of Homeland Security)
- Full Food Services - Fort Moore, GA — $65.9M (Department of Defense)
View all Georgia Vocational Rehabilitation Agency federal contracts →
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)