DoD awards $13.3M guard services contract to Chugach McKinley, Inc. for 5-year period
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $13,366,521 ($13.4M)
Contractor: Chugach Mckinley, Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2006-09-15
End Date: 2011-09-14
Contract Duration: 1,825 days
Daily Burn Rate: $7.3K/day
Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Number of Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: PROVIDE GUARD SERVICE MWTC BRIGEPORT, CA
Place of Performance
Location: BRIDGEPORT, MONO County, CALIFORNIA, 93517
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $13.4 million to CHUGACH MCKINLEY, INC. for work described as: PROVIDE GUARD SERVICE MWTC BRIGEPORT, CA Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price competition. 2. Duration of 5 years suggests a need for stable, long-term service provision. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. Service category is guard services, a common requirement for federal facilities. 5. Geographic location in California may indicate specific security needs for the facility.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
The contract value of $13.3 million over five years averages to approximately $2.66 million annually. Without comparable contract data for guard services in the same region or for similar facilities, a precise value-for-money assessment is difficult. However, the sole-source nature of the award raises concerns about whether the government secured the most competitive pricing. Benchmarking against industry standards for guard services would be necessary for a more definitive evaluation.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: sole-source
This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not openly competed. This typically occurs when only one responsible source is available or when a compelling justification for other than full and open competition exists. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore a wider range of potential providers and potentially negotiate more favorable terms or pricing.
Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the benefits of competitive bidding, which drives down prices, are not realized.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense and the specific facility requiring guard services. The service delivered is physical security and guard services, ensuring the protection of government property and personnel. The geographic impact is localized to Bridgeport, California, where the facility is located. The contract supports jobs within the security services industry, specifically for Chugach McKinley, Inc. employees.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Sole-source award limits competitive pricing, potentially increasing costs for taxpayers.
- Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
- Contract duration of 5 years may not allow for reassessment of market prices or service needs.
Positive Signals
- Firm Fixed Price contract shifts cost risk to the contractor.
- Award to an incumbent or known provider may ensure continuity of essential services.
- Specific service category (guard services) is clearly defined.
Sector Analysis
Guard services fall under the broader commercial and professional services sector. This sector is characterized by a wide range of providers, from small local businesses to large national corporations. Federal spending in this area is substantial, driven by the need to secure government facilities, personnel, and assets. Benchmarking this contract's value against other federal guard service contracts would provide context, but the sole-source nature makes direct comparison challenging.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting requirements for small businesses. The award to Chugach McKinley, Inc., a company that may or may not be classified as a small business, means that opportunities for small business participation through subcontracting are not guaranteed by the contract terms provided. Further investigation into the contractor's size and subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. The firm fixed price nature of the contract provides some level of accountability by requiring the contractor to deliver services within the agreed-upon price. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and performance metrics would be key areas for oversight. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Federal Protective Service Contracts
- Department of Defense Security Services
- Guard Services for Government Facilities
Risk Flags
- Sole-source award
- Lack of detailed justification for sole-source
- No explicit small business subcontracting requirements mentioned
Tags
defense, department-of-defense, department-of-the-navy, guard-services, firm-fixed-price, sole-source, california, long-term-contract, security-services, commercial-services
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $13.4 million to CHUGACH MCKINLEY, INC.. PROVIDE GUARD SERVICE MWTC BRIGEPORT, CA
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is CHUGACH MCKINLEY, INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $13.4 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2006-09-15. End: 2011-09-14.
What is the track record of Chugach McKinley, Inc. in providing guard services to the federal government?
Information on Chugach McKinley, Inc.'s track record is not detailed in the provided data. To assess their performance, one would need to review past federal contract awards to this company, including contract values, durations, performance reviews (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any instances of contract disputes or terminations. A history of successful, timely, and cost-effective service delivery would indicate a positive track record, while frequent issues or poor performance would raise concerns about their capability to fulfill this new contract effectively.
How does the annual cost of this contract compare to similar guard services contracts awarded by the Department of Defense?
The annual cost for this contract is approximately $2.66 million ($13.3 million / 5 years). To benchmark this value, we would need to compare it against guard services contracts of similar scope, duration, and geographic location awarded by the DoD or other federal agencies. Factors such as the number of guards, hours of service, specific security requirements (e.g., armed vs. unarmed, specialized equipment), and prevailing wage rates in the service area would need to be considered. Without this comparative data, it is difficult to definitively state whether this contract represents good or poor value for money, though the sole-source nature suggests potential for overpayment.
What are the specific risks associated with awarding a 5-year guard services contract on a sole-source basis?
The primary risks of a 5-year sole-source guard services contract include: 1) Inflated pricing due to lack of competition, as the contractor may not feel pressure to offer the most competitive rates. 2) Potential for service degradation over time if the contractor becomes complacent, knowing they are unlikely to be replaced. 3) Inflexibility to adapt to changing security needs or technological advancements, as renegotiating terms mid-contract can be difficult. 4) Missed opportunities to leverage innovation or cost savings that could be offered by other potential providers if the contract were re-competed. The long duration exacerbates these risks by locking the government into a single provider for an extended period.
What is the justification provided for awarding this contract as sole-source?
The provided data states the contract was awarded 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is a common indicator for sole-source or limited competition awards. However, the specific justification is not detailed. Typically, sole-source justifications must meet strict criteria outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), such as the existence of only one responsible source, a public exigency, or a specific statutory authority. Without the official justification document, it's impossible to assess the validity of the sole-source determination and whether it was appropriate.
What are the implications of the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type for this guard services agreement?
A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type means that the contractor, Chugach McKinley, Inc., is obligated to perform the work for a stated price, regardless of their actual costs. This shifts the cost risk from the government to the contractor. If the contractor's expenses are higher than anticipated, their profit margin will decrease. Conversely, if they can perform the services more efficiently or at a lower cost than projected, their profit will increase. For the government, FFP provides cost certainty, making budgeting easier, but it also means they may not benefit from cost savings if the contractor is highly efficient, unless the price was negotiated competitively.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Services to Buildings and Dwellings › Janitorial Services
Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION
Offers Received: 1
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Chugach Alaska Corporation (UEI: 071844021)
Address: 3800 CENTERPOINT DR STE 601, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00
Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $13,366,521
Exercised Options: $13,366,521
Current Obligation: $13,366,521
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: N6871104D3601
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2006-09-15
Current End Date: 2011-09-14
Potential End Date: 2011-09-14 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2011-01-11
More Contracts from Chugach Mckinley, Inc.
- Federal Contract — $228.0M (Department of Defense)
- 200401!041002!1700!BW10C !naval Surface Warfare Center, Da!n0017804c2072 !A!N! !Y! ! !20031001!20080930!038522876!038522876!071844021!n!chugach Mckinley, Inc !560 East 34TH Avenue !anchorage !ak!99503!21008!099!51!dahlgren !king George !virginia !+000000416000!n!n!000008334538!d301!adp Facility Operation & Maintenance Services !S1 !services !000 !* !541513!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!b!f!n!n!z!b!n!u!1!001!n!5a!z!y!z! ! !n!a!n!n!e! ! ! !D!A!00 !A!B!N! ! ! ! ! !N00178!0001! ! — $79.5M (Department of Defense)
- Provide Vocational and Academic Services to Youth Ages 16 to 24 OLD — $52.2M (Department of Labor)
- Federal Contract — $43.0M (Department of Defense)
- Construct Gateway Center — $32.2M (Department of Health and Human Services)
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)