Justice Department awards $4.1M for courthouse video system upgrades to Johnson Controls

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,105,193 ($4.1M)

Contractor: Johnson Controls Security Solutions LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2022-09-01

End Date: 2026-12-30

Contract Duration: 1,581 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: NEW TASK ORDER - UPGRADE OF COURTHOUSE VIDEO MANAGEMENT AND PACS

Place of Performance

Location: LAS VEGAS, CLARK County, NEVADA, 89101

State: Nevada Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $4.1 million to JOHNSON CONTROLS SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC for work described as: NEW TASK ORDER - UPGRADE OF COURTHOUSE VIDEO MANAGEMENT AND PACS Key points: 1. Contract awarded via a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call, indicating a pre-negotiated framework. 2. The contract is for security systems services, specifically video management and PACS. 3. A firm-fixed-price contract type suggests predictable costs for the government. 4. The award was made under full and open competition. 5. The contract duration is over four years, ending in December 2026. 6. The task order is valued at over $4 million for services in Nevada.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $4.1 million for a four-year upgrade of video management and PACS systems appears reasonable given the scope. Benchmarking against similar security system installations for federal courthouses is challenging without more specific details on the technology and scale. However, the firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty. The award to a single contractor, Johnson Controls Security Solutions LLC, suggests a potentially specialized solution or a competitive process that identified them as the best value.

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. The data shows two offers were received. While the number of bidders is relatively low, the full and open nature suggests a fair process. The specific details of the competition, such as the number of proposals evaluated and the evaluation criteria, are not provided, but the process itself implies an effort to achieve competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, generally provides taxpayers with a better opportunity for competitive pricing compared to sole-source or limited solicitations.

Public Impact

The U.S. Marshals Service will benefit from enhanced security and surveillance capabilities at federal courthouses. The contract delivers upgraded video management and Physical Access Control Systems (PACS). Services are specifically for facilities located in Nevada. Improved security infrastructure can contribute to a safer working environment for federal employees and the public. The upgrade supports the operational needs of the judicial branch by ensuring secure facilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition with only two offers received could potentially lead to higher prices than a more robust bidding process.
The specific technological upgrades and their long-term maintenance costs are not detailed, posing a potential risk for future budget planning.
Reliance on a single vendor for a critical security system upgrade may create future lock-in risks.

Positive Signals

The use of a firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarding under full and open competition ensures a fair and transparent procurement process.
The task order is part of a larger Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), suggesting pre-negotiated terms and potential efficiencies.
The contract duration of over four years allows for a phased implementation and potential for system stabilization.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the Security Systems Services sector, specifically focusing on video management and access control. This sector is crucial for government facilities, ensuring safety and security. The market for these services is competitive, with numerous providers offering integrated solutions. The value of this specific task order, over $4 million, is moderate within the broader context of federal security contracts, which can range from tens of millions to billions for large-scale installations and maintenance.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb) is false, and there is no indication of a small business set-aside (ss). This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses are not detailed in this data. The lack of a small business set-aside means larger, established companies were likely the primary focus of the competition.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the U.S. Marshals Service, the contracting agency, and the Department of Justice. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract simplifies financial oversight. Accountability measures would be tied to the successful delivery of the specified security system upgrades according to the contract terms and performance standards. Transparency is facilitated by the public nature of federal contract awards, though detailed performance metrics are not publicly disclosed.

Related Government Programs

Federal Courthouse Security Upgrades
Physical Access Control Systems (PACS) Procurement
Video Surveillance Systems Contracts
Department of Justice IT and Security Modernization
General Services Administration (GSA) Blanket Purchase Agreements (BPAs)

Risk Flags

Limited number of bidders received.
Potential for vendor lock-in with specialized security systems.
Lack of detailed technical specifications in summary data.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $4.1 million to JOHNSON CONTROLS SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC. NEW TASK ORDER - UPGRADE OF COURTHOUSE VIDEO MANAGEMENT AND PACS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is JOHNSON CONTROLS SECURITY SOLUTIONS LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (U.S. Marshals Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-09-01. End: 2026-12-30.

What is the specific technology being upgraded or installed, and what are the key performance improvements expected?

The task order specifies upgrades to the video management and Physical Access Control Systems (PACS). While detailed technical specifications are not provided in the summary data, typical improvements in such upgrades include enhanced video resolution and storage, advanced analytics capabilities (e.g., facial recognition, anomaly detection), more robust access control with features like biometric integration, improved system integration for unified security management, and increased cybersecurity resilience. The expected performance improvements would center on enhanced situational awareness, better threat detection, more efficient access management, and improved evidence collection for investigations, ultimately contributing to a more secure courthouse environment.

How does the awarded price of approximately $4.1 million compare to similar federal contracts for courthouse security system upgrades?

Direct comparison of the $4.1 million award for this task order to similar federal contracts is difficult without knowing the exact scope, scale, and specific technologies involved. However, federal contracts for comprehensive security system upgrades in large facilities can range significantly. For a multi-year project covering video management and PACS for multiple courthouses or a significant portion of a large courthouse in Nevada, this value appears within a reasonable range. Factors influencing price include the number of access points, cameras, square footage of the facility, integration requirements with existing systems, and the level of technological sophistication. A firm-fixed-price award suggests that the contractor has factored in these variables to provide a set cost.

What are the potential risks associated with Johnson Controls Security Solutions LLC's track record on similar government contracts?

Assessing the specific risks associated with Johnson Controls Security Solutions LLC requires a deeper dive into their past performance data, which is not fully detailed in the provided summary. Generally, potential risks with any contractor include past performance issues such as cost overruns, schedule delays, quality control problems, or failure to meet technical requirements on previous contracts. For security systems, risks could also involve cybersecurity vulnerabilities in their solutions or inadequate support and maintenance. A review of contract databases and performance reports (like CPARS) would be necessary to identify any specific red flags or confirm a history of successful project execution for the U.S. Marshals Service or similar agencies.

What is the historical spending pattern for security systems services by the U.S. Marshals Service or the Department of Justice?

Historical spending data for security systems services by the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) and the broader Department of Justice (DOJ) would reveal trends in investment in surveillance, access control, and related security technologies. While specific figures for this task order's category (NAICS 561621) are not provided, federal agencies consistently allocate significant budgets to maintaining and upgrading security infrastructure. Spending often increases following security incidents or evolving threat landscapes. Examining past years' obligations for similar services would indicate whether this $4.1 million award represents a typical investment, an increase, or a decrease in spending for these types of upgrades within the USMS's operational context.

How does the limited number of bidders (2) impact the value proposition for taxpayers in this full and open competition?

While a full and open competition theoretically allows all eligible vendors to bid, receiving only two offers can raise questions about the effectiveness of the solicitation or the market's competitiveness for this specific requirement. A lower number of bidders can reduce price pressure, potentially leading to a higher-than-optimal price for taxpayers compared to a scenario with numerous competing bids. However, if the two bidders were highly qualified and submitted competitive proposals, the value could still be considered good. The contracting officer's determination that the award represents the best value to the government is key. Without more information on the bidding process and the nature of the requirement, it's difficult to definitively state the impact, but fewer bidders generally correlate with less competitive pricing.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Systems Services (except Locksmiths)

Product/Service Code: ALARM, SIGNAL, SECURITY DETECTION

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: 15M20019RA32NPS04

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3601 EISENHOWER AVE STE 300, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22304

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,105,193

Exercised Options: $4,105,193

Current Obligation: $4,105,193

Actual Outlays: $1,368,821

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15M20019AA32NP01B

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline