DHS awards $39.5M for security services in Texas, with a high per-unit cost

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,478,106 ($39.5M)

Contractor: Corecivic, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2022-08-18

End Date: 2023-08-17

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $108.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: HOUSTON CDF

Place of Performance

Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77032

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $39.5 million to CORECIVIC, INC. for work described as: HOUSTON CDF Key points: 1. The contract value represents a significant investment in securing federal facilities. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for these services. 3. The fixed-price contract type aims to control costs and provide budget certainty. 4. Performance is tied to security guard and patrol services, critical for facility safety. 5. This award falls within the broader category of government security and protective services. 6. The duration of the contract is approximately one year, indicating a short-term need or a recurring requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $39.5 million for one year of security services appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar contracts for security guards and patrol services is crucial to determine value for money. Without specific details on the number of personnel, hours, or geographic coverage, a precise value assessment is difficult. However, the reported base contract value of $108,456 suggests this initial award is a portion of a larger potential value or a specific task order.

Cost Per Unit: The provided data does not allow for a direct per-unit cost calculation without knowing the number of guards, hours, or specific services rendered. The base contract value of $108,456 is too low to be representative of the total award value and likely represents a smaller initial task or a different metric.

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 bids. This method is generally preferred for maximizing competition and achieving the best value for the government. The number of bidders is not specified, but the full and open nature suggests a potentially robust competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is intended to drive down prices through market forces, potentially leading to cost savings for taxpayers compared to less competitive procurement methods.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ensuring the security of their facilities and operations. The services delivered include security guards and patrol, crucial for maintaining order and safety. The geographic impact is focused on Texas, where the services are being rendered. This contract supports the workforce employed in providing security services, likely creating or sustaining jobs in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns if scope creep occurs within the fixed-price structure.
Dependence on contractor performance for critical security functions.
Limited visibility into the specific qualifications and training of security personnel without further detail.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive pricing environment.
Fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Clear service description (Security Guards and Patrol Services) aids in performance monitoring.

Sector Analysis

The government contracting sector for security services is substantial, with agencies like DHS and ICE being major consumers. This contract fits within the broader market for protective services, which includes physical security, guard services, and patrol operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large-scale security contracts awarded by federal agencies to understand pricing and service levels within this sector.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by a set-aside. The prime contractor, CORECIVIC, INC., is a large entity, and its subcontracting practices would need to be assessed separately to understand any indirect impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the contracting officer and the relevant program officials within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Performance monitoring, quality assurance, and invoice review are standard oversight mechanisms. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Protective Service Contracts
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Detention Services
Department of Homeland Security Security Operations
Government Security Guard Services

Risk Flags

Contract Value
Performance Risk
Cost Benchmarking

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $39.5 million to CORECIVIC, INC.. HOUSTON CDF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CORECIVIC, INC..

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 $39.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-08-18. End: 2023-08-17.

What is the historical spending pattern for security guard and patrol services by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for security guard and patrol services by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is crucial for understanding the context of the $39.5 million award. While specific historical data for ICE's security services is not provided here, federal procurement databases (like FPDS) would allow for a detailed review. This would involve identifying previous contracts for similar services, their values, durations, and the contractors involved. Trends in spending, such as increases or decreases over fiscal years, can indicate shifts in agency needs, policy changes, or market dynamics. Comparing the current award's value and duration to past procurements can help assess whether this represents a typical expenditure, an escalation, or a reduction in service provision. Understanding these patterns also helps in identifying potential long-term commitments or recurring needs for such services.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to other similar federal security service contracts?

A direct comparison of the per-unit cost for this $39.5 million contract against similar federal security service contracts is challenging without more granular data. The provided information lacks specifics on the number of security personnel, hours worked, or the exact scope of services rendered, which are essential for calculating a meaningful per-unit cost (e.g., cost per guard hour, cost per facility secured). To perform such a comparison, one would need to access detailed contract line item data for other federal security contracts, ideally those awarded by agencies with similar security needs and operating environments. Benchmarking would involve identifying comparable contracts in terms of service type (guard, patrol), geographic location, and contract duration. If this contract's per-unit cost is significantly higher than the average for similar services, it could indicate potential issues with pricing, contractor efficiency, or unique service requirements that justify the premium. Conversely, a lower per-unit cost might suggest favorable market conditions or efficient service delivery.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance for these security services?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for security guard and patrol services are critical for ensuring the effectiveness of the contract and the safety of federal facilities. While not explicitly detailed in the provided data, typical KPIs for such contracts often include metrics related to response times to incidents, adherence to post orders, personnel punctuality and attendance, the number of security breaches or incidents occurring, and the effectiveness of surveillance and patrol activities. Other important KPIs might involve the successful completion of required training by personnel, proper maintenance of security equipment, and compliance with all relevant security protocols and regulations. The government would likely have a Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP) outlining these KPIs and the methods for monitoring and evaluating the contractor's performance against them. Failure to meet these KPIs could result in contractual remedies, such as performance improvement plans or financial penalties.

What is the track record of CORECIVIC, INC. in providing similar security services to federal agencies?

CORECIVIC, INC. has a significant track record in providing a range of services, including correctional facility management and, relevantly, security services. Their experience often involves managing large workforces and complex operational environments. To assess their track record specifically for federal security guard and patrol services, a review of their past federal contracts would be necessary. This would involve examining contract performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), any past performance issues or disputes, and the scale and duration of previous security contracts they have held. Agencies often consider a contractor's history of meeting performance requirements, managing costs, and adhering to security standards when awarding new contracts. CORECIVIC's broader experience in managing secure facilities suggests a foundational capability, but specific performance data on security guard contracts would provide a more direct assessment of their suitability for this particular DHS requirement.

What is the potential risk associated with the sole-source nature of this contract, if applicable?

The provided data indicates this contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' not sole-source. Therefore, the risk associated with a sole-source award is not applicable here. Full and open competition is generally considered the least risky procurement method in terms of price and value, as it allows multiple vendors to compete, driving down costs and encouraging innovation. Risks in a full and open competition are more typically related to the execution of the contract, such as contractor performance, potential for scope creep, or unforeseen operational challenges, rather than the procurement process itself being inherently risky due to a lack of competition.

How does the $39.5 million award compare to the total annual budget for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's security operations?

To determine how the $39.5 million award compares to the total annual budget for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) security operations, one would need to consult ICE's official budget documents and appropriations reports for the relevant fiscal year (likely 2022-2023, given the award dates). Federal agencies publish detailed budget justifications and spending reports annually. Without access to those specific figures, it's impossible to provide a precise comparison. However, $39.5 million represents a substantial sum, suggesting it could be a significant portion of the budget allocated for a specific category of security services, such as facility security, detention center security, or border patrol support, depending on ICE's operational priorities. If ICE's total security budget is in the hundreds of millions or billions, this award would represent a smaller, albeit significant, component. Conversely, if their security budget is more constrained, this award could represent a larger percentage of their overall security spending.

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: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5501 VIRGINIA WAY, STE 110, BRENTWOOD, TN, 37027

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $39,478,106

Exercised Options: $39,478,106

Current Obligation: $39,478,106

Actual Outlays: $39,478,106

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 70CDCR20D00000014

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline