Krome Detention Center contract awarded to Akima Global Services for $50M for security guard services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $50,049,270 ($50.0M)

Contractor: Akima Global Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2021-05-01

End Date: 2022-04-30

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $137.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: KROME DETENTION CENTER

Place of Performance

Location: MIAMI, MIAMI-DADE County, FLORIDA, 33194

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $50.0 million to AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC for work described as: KROME DETENTION CENTER Key points: 1. The contract value of $50M for security guard services represents a significant investment in detention facility operations. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract, awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' warrant further examination to understand the bidding landscape. 3. The fixed-firm price contract structure suggests a predictable cost for the government, but the value for money needs to be benchmarked against similar services. 4. Performance context is crucial; the effectiveness of security guard services directly impacts the safety and security of the detention center. 5. The contract's duration of 364 days provides a clear operational timeframe for service delivery. 6. The geographic location in Florida (st. FL, sn. FLORIDA) is a key contextual factor for understanding operational needs and potential labor market influences.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the per-unit cost of security guard services against similar contracts for detention facilities is essential to assess value for money. Given the contract's value and the nature of security services, a detailed cost analysis comparing Akima Global Services' pricing to industry standards and historical government spending on comparable services would be necessary. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, it is difficult to definitively assess the value proposition at this stage. The fixed-firm price suggests cost certainty, but the efficiency and effectiveness of the services rendered are paramount for true value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This procurement method indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded, potentially limiting the pool of bidders. The specific reasons for excluding sources would need to be investigated to understand the impact on competition. A limited competition may result in fewer bids, potentially affecting price discovery and the government's ability to secure the most competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A limited competition could mean taxpayers do not benefit from the lowest possible prices that a truly open and unrestricted competition might yield. It raises questions about whether the government secured the best possible deal for taxpayer funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ensuring the secure operation of the Krome Detention Center. The services delivered include essential security guard and patrol functions, vital for maintaining order, safety, and security within a federal detention facility. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florida, specifically at the Krome Detention Center, affecting the local operational environment and potentially local employment. Workforce implications include the direct employment of security personnel by Akima Global Services, contributing to the local job market in Florida.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'Exclusion of Sources' could impact cost-effectiveness for taxpayers.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the quality and effectiveness of services rendered.
The specific reasons for excluding sources in the procurement process are not detailed, raising questions about fairness and optimal bidder selection.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical security functions at a detention center can introduce single-source risk if not managed effectively.

Positive Signals

The contract is awarded under a fixed-firm price, providing cost certainty for the government.
The duration of the contract (364 days) allows for sustained security operations without immediate re-competition.
The award to Akima Global Services, assuming they have a track record of performance, suggests a level of confidence in their capability to provide the required services.

Sector Analysis

The provision of security guard and patrol services is a significant component within the broader government contracting sector, particularly for agencies managing facilities like detention centers. This contract falls under the security and protective services sub-sector. The market for these services is competitive, with numerous private companies offering specialized security solutions. Government spending in this area is substantial, driven by the need to secure federal assets and personnel. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing contracts for similar security services at other federal detention facilities or high-security government installations.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation was not a stated requirement or outcome for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that small businesses were not specifically targeted for set-aside awards or significant subcontracting roles within this particular contract. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem for this specific award appears minimal, and there are no explicit subcontracting implications for small businesses mentioned.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the purview of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). These agencies are responsible for monitoring contractor performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and managing the overall relationship. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract's performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract award databases, but detailed operational oversight and Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on specific DHS policies and any ongoing audits or investigations related to the contract's execution.

Related Government Programs

Federal Protective Service Contracts
Detention Facility Operations Support
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Services
Department of Homeland Security Security Contracts
Guard Services for Federal Facilities

Risk Flags

Procurement method raises questions about competition breadth.
Lack of detailed performance data hinders value assessment.
Potential for unaddressed risks due to exclusion of sources.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $50.0 million to AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC. KROME DETENTION CENTER

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $50.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-05-01. End: 2022-04-30.

What is the track record of Akima Global Services in providing security guard services to federal agencies, particularly detention facilities?

Akima Global Services, LLC has a history of contracting with the federal government, including providing various services to agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. Their experience often spans logistics, base operations support, and security services. To fully assess their track record for this specific contract, a deeper dive into their past performance evaluations, any documented issues or commendations related to security guard services at detention centers or similar high-security environments would be necessary. This would involve reviewing past performance questionnaires (PPQs), contract administration records, and any publicly available reports or news concerning their service delivery in similar capacities. Understanding their specific experience with ICE or DHS detention facilities would be particularly relevant.

How does the awarded amount of $50,049,269.75 compare to historical spending on security services for the Krome Detention Center or similar facilities?

To compare the awarded amount of approximately $50 million for security services at the Krome Detention Center, historical spending data for this specific facility and for comparable ICE or DHS detention centers would be required. Analyzing past contracts for security guard and patrol services at Krome, as well as at other large-scale detention facilities, would provide a benchmark. Factors such as the number of detainees, the facility's size, the required security levels, and the duration of previous contracts would need to be considered for a meaningful comparison. Without this historical context, it is difficult to ascertain whether this award represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of spending for these essential services.

What are the specific risks associated with a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement method for security services?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method presents specific risks. While it aims for broad competition, the exclusion of certain sources implies that the government has determined that specific vendors or types of vendors are not suitable or available for this requirement. The primary risk is that this exclusion may inadvertently limit the competitive pool, potentially leading to higher prices or reduced innovation compared to a truly unrestricted open competition. It also raises questions about the justification for exclusion; if the exclusion criteria are too narrow or subjective, it could stifle competition. Furthermore, it necessitates robust documentation and justification for the exclusion to ensure fairness and compliance with procurement regulations, otherwise, it could face protests or legal challenges.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the effectiveness of security guard services in a detention center environment?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for security guard services in a detention center are critical for ensuring safety and security. These typically include metrics such as incident response times (e.g., time to respond to alarms or disturbances), the number of security breaches or escapes, contraband detection rates, adherence to post orders and patrol schedules, use-of-force incident rates (and appropriateness), inmate disciplinary infractions related to security lapses, and successful completion of required security checks and screenings. Additionally, KPIs might cover personnel factors like guard turnover rates, training compliance, and the number of reported safety violations. Effective oversight requires regular reporting and analysis of these KPIs to ensure the contractor is meeting contractual obligations and maintaining a secure environment.

What is the potential impact of this contract on the overall security posture and operational efficiency of the Krome Detention Center?

This contract is fundamental to the operational efficiency and security posture of the Krome Detention Center. The provision of reliable and effective security guard services directly impacts the center's ability to maintain order, prevent unauthorized access, manage inmate populations safely, and respond to emergencies. A well-executed contract ensures a secure environment for staff, detainees, and visitors, minimizing risks of escapes, violence, or contraband introduction. Conversely, deficiencies in service delivery could compromise the center's security, potentially leading to safety incidents, operational disruptions, and increased risks for all involved. The contractor's performance is therefore a critical determinant of the facility's overall effectiveness and security.

Are there any specific regulatory or compliance requirements that Akima Global Services must adhere to beyond standard security protocols?

Beyond standard security protocols, Akima Global Services, as a contractor operating within a federal detention center, must adhere to a stringent set of regulatory and compliance requirements. These include adherence to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and all specific terms and conditions outlined in the contract. Furthermore, they must comply with all applicable federal laws and regulations governing detention facilities, including those related to inmate rights, use of force, and facility safety standards set forth by agencies like ICE and DHS. Depending on the specific nature of the services, compliance with labor laws (e.g., Fair Labor Standards Act), background check requirements for personnel, and potentially specific data privacy regulations might also be mandated. Regular audits and inspections by the contracting agency would ensure ongoing compliance.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3901 OLD INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT RD STE 200-G, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99502

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $50,049,270

Exercised Options: $50,049,270

Current Obligation: $50,049,270

Actual Outlays: $-3,646

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSCEDM14D00002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline