GSA awards $3.1M contract for armed security services, with Whitestone Group Inc. securing the deal

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,091,028 ($3.1M)

Contractor: THE Whitestone Group, Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2025-12-31

End Date: 2026-11-05

Contract Duration: 309 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRANSFER OF CONSUMER FINANCE PROTECTION BUREAU CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ARMED SECURITY SERVICES TO THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION LOCATED AT 1700 G ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC.

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20552

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $3.1 million to THE WHITESTONE GROUP, INC. for work described as: TRANSFER OF CONSUMER FINANCE PROTECTION BUREAU CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ARMED SECURITY SERVICES TO THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION LOCATED AT 1700 G ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC. Key points: 1. The contract value of $3.1 million over its period of performance represents a significant investment in safeguarding federal facilities. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract are crucial for ensuring fair pricing and service quality in the security sector. 3. Risk indicators will be monitored through performance metrics and adherence to security protocols. 4. This contract's performance will be contextualized against broader trends in federal security service procurement. 5. The contract positions the General Services Administration (GSA) as a key procurer of essential security services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $3.1 million for armed security services appears reasonable given the scope and duration. Benchmarking against similar GSA contracts for security guards and patrol services (NAICS 561612) would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests that cost risks are largely borne by the contractor, which can be advantageous for the government if managed effectively. However, without specific performance data or detailed cost breakdowns, a definitive assessment of exceptional value is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. This approach is generally favored for maximizing competition and achieving the best possible pricing and quality. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but the 'full and open' designation suggests a robust competitive process was intended.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it typically drives down prices through market forces and encourages a wider pool of qualified vendors to bid, leading to potentially better service at a lower cost.

Public Impact

Federal employees and visitors to GSA facilities in Washington D.C. will benefit from enhanced security measures. The contract ensures the provision of armed security guard and patrol services, crucial for maintaining a safe environment. The geographic impact is concentrated in Washington D.C., where the GSA facility is located. The contract supports jobs within the private security industry, specifically for armed guards and related personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs despite firm-fixed-price.
Ensuring consistent quality of armed personnel across shifts and over the contract duration.
Monitoring contractor compliance with all federal security regulations and performance standards.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
Firm-fixed-price contract type limits government exposure to cost increases.
Longer performance period allows for stable service delivery and potential for economies of scale.

Sector Analysis

The security services sector is a significant component of the federal procurement landscape, with agencies consistently requiring guarding and patrol services. NAICS code 561612, Security Guards and Patrol Services, encompasses a broad range of activities. Federal spending in this area is substantial, driven by the need to protect government assets and personnel. This contract fits within the broader trend of federal agencies outsourcing security functions to specialized private sector firms.

Small Business Impact

The contract indicates that small business participation was not a primary set-aside consideration, as the 'small business' flag is false. While the prime contractor, The Whitestone Group, Inc., may be a small business itself, the contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist but are not explicitly detailed in the provided data. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business involvement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the GSA's Public Buildings Service, which is responsible for federal real estate. Accountability measures will be embedded in the contract's performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is generally facilitated through public contract databases, though specific performance metrics may not be publicly disclosed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Protective Service Contracts
Department of Homeland Security Security Services
General Services Administration Facility Management Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for contractor performance issues.
Ensuring adequate vetting and training of armed personnel.
Monitoring for scope creep in a firm-fixed-price contract.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $3.1 million to THE WHITESTONE GROUP, INC.. TRANSFER OF CONSUMER FINANCE PROTECTION BUREAU CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR ARMED SECURITY SERVICES TO THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION LOCATED AT 1700 G ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE WHITESTONE GROUP, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-12-31. End: 2026-11-05.

What is the track record of The Whitestone Group, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly in security services?

A thorough review of The Whitestone Group, Inc.'s federal contract history would be necessary to assess their track record. This would involve examining past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and their experience with similar-sized and scope security contracts. Data from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) would be crucial. Understanding their history with the GSA specifically would also be valuable, as it indicates familiarity with the agency's procurement processes and requirements. Without this specific data, it's difficult to definitively assess their reliability and past performance.

How does the awarded price compare to market rates for similar armed security services in the Washington D.C. area?

To benchmark the awarded price of $3.1 million against market rates, one would need to gather data on comparable armed security contracts in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. This includes analyzing contracts awarded by other federal agencies, state and local governments, and large private sector entities for similar services (e.g., number of guards, hours of coverage, required certifications, equipment). Factors such as the specific security threats, required response times, and the level of personnel vetting can significantly influence pricing. A detailed cost-per-hour or cost-per-guard analysis, adjusted for contract duration and scope, would be necessary for a robust comparison. The firm-fixed-price nature of this contract suggests the contractor has factored in these market dynamics.

What are the primary risk indicators associated with this type of armed security contract?

Key risk indicators for this armed security contract include the potential for personnel-related issues such as high turnover, inadequate training, or misconduct, which could compromise security. There's also a risk of service disruptions due to contractor performance failures or unforeseen events. Financial risks for the government are generally mitigated by the firm-fixed-price structure, but scope creep could lead to cost increases if not managed tightly. Operational risks involve ensuring the contractor's adherence to strict protocols, maintaining equipment, and responding effectively to incidents. Reputational risk could arise from any security breaches or negative public incidents involving the contractor's personnel.

What is the historical spending pattern for armed security services by the GSA or similar agencies?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for armed security services by the GSA and comparable agencies is essential for context. This involves examining annual expenditures on NAICS code 561612 over several fiscal years. Trends in contract values, the number of contracts awarded, and the types of services procured (e.g., armed vs. unarmed, specific security technologies) would provide insight. Understanding whether spending has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable can indicate shifts in agency needs or budget priorities. Comparing GSA's spending on security services to that of agencies with similar facility portfolios, like the Department of State or the National Archives and Records Administration, would offer valuable benchmarks.

How does the 'full and open competition' award method impact the overall value and taxpayer cost for this contract?

The 'full and open competition' award method is designed to maximize value for taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment. By allowing all responsible sources to bid, the government increases the likelihood of receiving multiple proposals, which drives down prices through market forces. This method encourages innovation and efficiency as contractors strive to offer the most competitive terms. While the administrative effort to manage a full and open competition can be higher, the potential savings and improved service quality typically outweigh these costs. The absence of specific bidder numbers makes it hard to quantify the exact competitive intensity, but the method itself is a strong indicator of an effort to secure the best possible deal for the government.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Guards and Patrol Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Solicitation ID: EQPMAA-26-0112

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6422 E MAIN ST STE 101, REYNOLDSBURG, OH, 43068

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,910,868

Exercised Options: $3,091,028

Current Obligation: $3,091,028

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 47PF5126A0001

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline