Agriculture Department awards $24.8M for security services, with 3 bidders competing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,839,664 ($24.8M)

Contractor: Defense Contracting Activity, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2021-03-04

End Date: 2026-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,944 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SECURITY GUARD SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: MANHATTAN, RILEY County, KANSAS, 66502

State: Kansas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $24.8 million to DEFENSE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY, LLC for work described as: SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the firm fixed-price contract type and competitive award. 2. Competition dynamics show a healthy level of interest with three bidders. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, with a long contract duration and fixed-price terms. 4. Performance context is for essential security guard services at an agricultural research facility. 5. Sector positioning is within the security services industry, supporting government operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract was awarded on a firm fixed-price basis, which helps control costs. With a total value of $24.8 million over approximately 5 years, the annual value is around $5 million. Benchmarking against similar security guard contracts is challenging without more specific service details, but the competitive nature of the award suggests a fair market price was likely achieved. The number of bidders (3) indicates a reasonable level of competition for this type of service.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. Three bids were received, suggesting a moderate level of competition. While more bidders could potentially drive prices lower, three offers generally provide sufficient price discovery and allow the agency to select the best value.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the competitive process, which aims to secure the most advantageous pricing and terms for the government. A full and open competition helps ensure that public funds are used efficiently.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the personnel and assets of the Agricultural Research Service facilities in Kansas. Services delivered include essential security guard and patrol functions to ensure safety and security. The geographic impact is localized to Kansas, where the services are being performed. Workforce implications include the creation of jobs for security personnel employed by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 5 years) could lead to potential cost increases if market rates rise significantly.
Firm fixed-price contracts can sometimes limit flexibility if service requirements change substantially during the performance period.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a fair market price was sought.
Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Multiple bidders (3) indicate a competitive environment for this service.

Sector Analysis

The security services industry is a significant sector supporting government operations. This contract falls under the NAICS code 561612 (Security Guards and Patrol Services). The market for government security contracts is substantial, with agencies across all branches relying on private sector providers for physical security. This specific award represents a portion of the overall federal spending on security services, which is often driven by the need to protect sensitive facilities and personnel.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract was specifically set aside for small businesses, nor is there information about subcontracting plans. Given the nature of the service and the competitive award, it's possible that larger, established security firms were the primary bidders. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation, either as prime contractors or subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the program office within the Agricultural Research Service. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases, though specific performance metrics may not be publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Protective Service Contracts
Department of Homeland Security Security Contracts
General Services Administration Schedules for Security Services

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may expose government to above-market rates if costs decrease.
Fixed-price nature shifts cost overrun risk to contractor, potentially impacting service quality if not managed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $24.8 million to DEFENSE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY, LLC. SECURITY GUARD SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DEFENSE CONTRACTING ACTIVITY, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $24.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-03-04. End: 2026-06-30.

What is the historical spending trend for security guard services by the Department of Agriculture?

Analyzing historical spending for security guard services by the Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires accessing and aggregating data from various contract databases over multiple fiscal years. While this specific contract is for $24.8 million, understanding the USDA's broader spending patterns in this category would involve looking at all awards under NAICS code 561612 and similar codes across all its agencies and research arms. Trends could reveal increasing or decreasing reliance on contracted security, shifts in contract types (e.g., fixed-price vs. cost-plus), and average contract values. Without a comprehensive historical data pull, it's difficult to definitively state the trend, but federal spending on security services generally fluctuates based on threat assessments, budget allocations, and agency priorities. This particular award represents a significant, multi-year commitment for a specific operational need.

How does the number of bidders (3) compare to similar security guard contracts awarded by federal agencies?

The number of bidders on federal contracts can vary significantly based on the contract's value, complexity, geographic location, and the specific services required. For security guard services, especially those with a firm fixed-price structure and a defined scope like this one, three bidders often represents a moderate level of competition. Agencies like the General Services Administration (GSA) or the Department of Defense might see higher numbers of bidders for larger, more complex requirements or those offered through established schedules. Conversely, highly specialized or geographically isolated security needs might attract fewer bidders. A range of 3-5 bidders is frequently observed for many service contracts, suggesting that while competition exists, there might be room for more potential offerors to participate, potentially driving prices even lower. However, three bidders are generally sufficient to provide a basis for price comparison and selection.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) typically associated with security guard contracts of this nature?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for security guard contracts like this one are crucial for ensuring effective service delivery and accountability. Common KPIs often include response times to incidents, adherence to post orders, patrol frequency and thoroughness, incident reporting accuracy and timeliness, personnel appearance and professionalism, and the prevention of unauthorized access or security breaches. For this specific contract with the Agricultural Research Service, KPIs might also be tailored to the unique security needs of research facilities, such as safeguarding sensitive equipment, materials, or data. Performance is typically monitored through regular reports, site inspections, and feedback from the government's COR (Contracting Officer's Representative). Failure to meet these KPIs can result in contractual remedies, including financial penalties or termination.

What is the potential impact of a firm fixed-price contract on contractor performance and government cost control?

A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract, like the one awarded here, establishes a ceiling price that the contractor must not exceed. This structure is highly advantageous for government cost control, as the total cost is known upfront, barring any contract modifications. For the contractor, it incentivizes efficiency and cost management, as any savings achieved below the fixed price become profit. However, it also shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor. This can sometimes lead to contractors cutting corners on quality or service to maintain profitability if their initial cost estimates were too low or if unforeseen issues arise. Therefore, robust oversight and clearly defined performance standards are essential to ensure that the pursuit of profit under an FFP contract does not compromise the quality or effectiveness of the security services provided.

Are there specific risks associated with the long duration (1944 days) of this contract?

The duration of this contract, approximately 5.3 years (1944 days), presents several potential risks. Firstly, market conditions for security services, including labor costs and inflation, can change significantly over such a long period. If the fixed price was set based on current rates, the contractor might face reduced profit margins or seek adjustments if costs escalate unexpectedly. Conversely, the government risks paying above market rates if the fixed price remains static while market prices decrease. Secondly, long-term contracts can sometimes lead to complacency in performance, as the immediate pressure of re-competition is distant. Finally, changes in agency needs, technology, or threat landscapes might render the contracted services less relevant or optimal over time, potentially requiring costly modifications or early termination. Effective contract management and periodic performance reviews are crucial to mitigate these risks.

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: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 12805B21R0001

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 14101 PARKE LONG CT STE P, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151

Business Categories: Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $24,839,664

Exercised Options: $24,839,664

Current Obligation: $24,839,664

Actual Outlays: $22,665,591

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS07F0085Y

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline