DoD's $43.7M Facilities Support Services Contract Awarded to Stanley Associates, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $43,695,913 ($43.7M)

Contractor: Stanley Associates, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2011-09-30

End Date: 2015-08-28

Contract Duration: 1,428 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: LIS SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BRAGG, CUMBERLAND County, NORTH CAROLINA, 28310

State: North Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $43.7 million to STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC. for work described as: LIS SUPPORT Key points: 1. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 2. The contract duration of 1428 days indicates a significant, long-term need for these services. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type helps manage cost certainty for the government. 4. Services provided fall under Facilities Support Services, a critical operational category. 5. The award was a delivery order, implying it was part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar framework. 6. The contract was not set aside for small businesses, indicating a focus on larger prime contractors.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $43.7 million contract requires more detailed cost breakdowns and comparisons to similar facilities support services contracts within the Department of Defense. The provided data lacks specific performance metrics or unit costs to definitively assess value for money. However, the firm-fixed-price structure offers some cost control. Without comparable contract data or detailed service level agreements, a precise value assessment is challenging.

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 bids. The presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While two bidders are better than one, a higher number of bids typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially better pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition, even with a limited number of bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging competitive pricing and ensuring that the government receives offers from qualified contractors.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from the provision of essential facilities support services, ensuring operational readiness. Services delivered likely include maintenance, repair, and management of government facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in North Carolina, where the services were likely performed. Workforce implications may include employment opportunities for personnel involved in facilities management and support.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders) may have resulted in a higher price than if more firms had competed.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the contractor's effectiveness and value.
The contract's duration and value could represent a significant commitment, making changes difficult if performance issues arise.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, ensuring a broad range of potential contractors could bid.
Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contractor, Stanley Associates, Inc., has a track record of performing government contracts, suggesting some level of established capability.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services is a broad category encompassing a wide range of activities necessary for the operation and maintenance of physical infrastructure. This sector is crucial for government agencies, particularly defense, to ensure their facilities are functional and secure. Spending in this area can fluctuate based on infrastructure needs, modernization efforts, and operational tempo. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale facilities management contracts awarded by various federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the data does not indicate any subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing a capable prime contractor, likely a larger firm, to fulfill the extensive facilities support needs. The absence of small business set-asides means that opportunities for small businesses to participate as prime contractors on this specific award were limited.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the relevant program management office within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's statement of work and performance standards. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Facilities Maintenance and Repair
Base Operations Support
Logistics and Support Services
Government Property Management

Risk Flags

Limited competition may impact price.
Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders value assessment.
Potential for contractor to underperform if cost pressures arise due to FFP structure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $43.7 million to STANLEY ASSOCIATES, INC.. LIS SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STANLEY ASSOCIATES, 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 $43.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-30. End: 2015-08-28.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities support services by the Department of the Army in North Carolina?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for facilities support services by the Department of the Army in North Carolina would require accessing and aggregating data from contract databases over several fiscal years. This would involve filtering awards by agency (Department of the Army), service category (facilities support, maintenance, repair, etc.), and geographic location (North Carolina). The goal would be to identify trends in contract values, durations, types of services procured, and the contractors frequently awarded these types of services. Such an analysis could reveal whether spending has increased or decreased, if specific facilities or bases are major recipients of these services, and the typical price ranges for similar contracts, providing context for the $43.7 million award to Stanley Associates, Inc.

How does the per-unit cost of services under this contract compare to industry benchmarks for facilities support?

Determining the per-unit cost for services under this contract and comparing it to industry benchmarks is challenging without a detailed breakdown of the services provided and their associated costs. Facilities support encompasses a wide array of activities, from janitorial services and landscaping to complex building systems maintenance and repair. To perform this comparison, one would need to identify specific line items within the contract (e.g., cost per square foot maintained, cost per hour for a specific trade) and then find equivalent industry data from sources like the General Services Administration (GSA) schedules, industry surveys, or reports from facilities management associations. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract means the overall price is set, but the underlying unit costs are internal to the contractor's pricing strategy.

What is Stanley Associates, Inc.'s track record with similar government contracts?

Stanley Associates, Inc. has a history of performing government contracts, including those related to facilities support and other services. A review of their contract awards would reveal the types of services they have provided, the agencies they have served, and the dollar values of those contracts. Examining past performance evaluations, if publicly available, would offer insights into their reliability, quality of service, and adherence to contract terms. Understanding their experience with similar-sized and scoped contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense, helps assess their capability to successfully execute this $43.7 million facilities support services award.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) associated with this contract, and how is performance measured?

The specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and performance measurement methods for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. Typically, facilities support contracts include KPIs related to response times for service requests, maintenance completion rates, facility uptime, safety compliance, and customer satisfaction. Performance would likely be monitored through regular reporting by the contractor, site inspections by government representatives, and potentially through formal performance evaluations at specific intervals. The contract's statement of work would outline these requirements and the metrics used to assess whether the contractor is meeting its obligations.

What is the risk profile of this contract in terms of potential cost overruns or performance failures?

The risk profile of this contract is influenced by several factors. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type generally shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, which can incentivize efficiency but also carries the risk of the contractor cutting corners if costs escalate unexpectedly. The fact that it was awarded under full and open competition with two bidders suggests a moderate level of market risk, but a higher number of bidders could have potentially lowered the price further. Performance failure risk depends heavily on the contractor's past performance, the complexity of the facilities supported, and the clarity of the contract's requirements and performance standards. Without specific performance data or a detailed risk assessment from the agency, it's difficult to quantify these risks precisely.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT (INCLD FIRMWARE) SOFTWARE,SUPPLIES& SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: CGI Inc (UEI: 248513116)

Address: 3101 WILSON BLVD STE 700, ARLINGTON, VA, 22201

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $43,695,913

Exercised Options: $43,695,913

Current Obligation: $43,695,913

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911SE07D0010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline