NASA awards $2.8M contract for protective services in California, highlighting security needs
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $2,832,042 ($2.8M)
Contractor: Chenega Global Protection, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2025-03-01
End Date: 2026-02-28
Contract Duration: 364 days
Daily Burn Rate: $7.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: AFRC PROTECTIVE SERVICES CY3
Place of Performance
Location: EDWARDS, KERN County, CALIFORNIA, 93523
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $2.8 million to CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC for work described as: AFRC PROTECTIVE SERVICES CY3 Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for specialized protective services over a one-year period. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized. 3. Fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the agency. 4. The contract duration is standard for recurring security guard services. 5. Geographic focus on California indicates specific regional security requirements. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 points to a well-defined service category.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of approximately $2.8 million for one year of protective services seems aligned with market rates for similar security guard and patrol services. Benchmarking against other federal contracts for comparable services in California or other states would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive indicator, as it caps the government's financial exposure and incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that while initial solicitations might have had exclusions, the final award was made through a broad competitive process. The number of bidders is not specified, but this method generally aims to maximize competition, which should lead to better pricing and service quality. The agency's choice of this procurement method suggests confidence in the availability of multiple qualified vendors.
Taxpayer Impact: This competitive approach is beneficial for taxpayers as it is expected to drive down costs and ensure the government receives the best possible value for its investment in protective services.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA facilities in California, receiving enhanced security and protection. Services delivered include security guards and patrol operations to maintain a safe environment. The geographic impact is concentrated within California, where NASA facilities are located. Workforce implications include the creation of jobs for security personnel employed by Chenega Global Protection, LLC.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for over-reliance on a single contractor if future renewals are not competitively bid.
- Ensuring consistent service quality across all deployed personnel requires robust oversight.
- Geographic concentration could pose a risk if local economic factors impact contractor performance.
Positive Signals
- The contractor, Chenega Global Protection, LLC, likely has experience in providing security services.
- The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
- Full and open competition suggests a robust selection process, potentially leading to high-quality service.
Sector Analysis
The security services sector is a significant component of the federal contracting landscape, encompassing a wide range of protective measures. This contract falls under the security guards and patrol services category, which is essential for maintaining physical security at government installations. Spending in this sector is driven by the need to protect personnel, assets, and sensitive information across various agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other contracts for similar security services awarded by agencies like the Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security.
Small Business Impact
The contract details indicate that small business participation was not a primary set-aside consideration for this specific award (ss: false, sb: false). While the prime contractor is Chenega Global Protection, LLC, there is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. Future analysis could explore whether the prime contractor has a history of engaging small businesses in their subcontracting efforts to assess the broader impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by NASA's contracting officer and potentially a contracting officer's representative (COR) who will monitor performance, ensure compliance with contract terms, and approve payments. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price structure, which incentivizes contractor performance. Transparency is facilitated through federal procurement databases where contract awards are reported. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.
Related Government Programs
- Federal Protective Service Contracts
- Department of Homeland Security Security Services
- General Services Administration Schedule 84 (Law Enforcement and Security Equipment)
- NASA Security Operations
Risk Flags
- Potential for service quality degradation if not adequately monitored.
- Contractor performance stability over the contract duration.
- Adequacy of competition for future contract renewals.
Tags
nasa, protective-services, security-guards, california, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, delivery-order, chenega-global-protection-llc, naics-561612, fy2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $2.8 million to CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC. AFRC PROTECTIVE SERVICES CY3
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $2.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2025-03-01. End: 2026-02-28.
What is the track record of Chenega Global Protection, LLC in providing federal protective services?
Chenega Global Protection, LLC is a known entity in the federal contracting space, often securing contracts for security and protective services across various agencies. A detailed review of their past performance would involve examining contract histories, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any documented disputes or awards. Their portfolio typically includes guarding, access control, and patrol services. Understanding their experience with similar-sized contracts and specific security requirements, such as those mandated by NASA, is crucial for assessing their capability to fulfill this current award effectively. Past performance data would indicate their reliability, quality of service, and adherence to contractual obligations.
How does the awarded price compare to market rates for similar security services in California?
The awarded price of approximately $2.8 million for a one-year contract for security guards and patrol services in California needs to be benchmarked against prevailing market rates. This involves researching average hourly wages for security personnel in the region, factoring in benefits, overhead, and profit margins typical for security firms. Additionally, comparing this contract's total value and per-hour rates (if calculable) to other federal or state contracts for similar services in comparable geographic areas would provide a robust comparison. Without specific per-unit cost data or detailed market analysis, it's challenging to definitively state if the price is optimal, but the full and open competition suggests a competitive outcome.
What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they mitigated?
Key risks include potential lapses in service quality, contractor personnel issues (e.g., turnover, training deficiencies), and unforeseen security threats. Mitigation strategies are embedded within the contract structure and agency oversight. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract incentivizes the contractor to maintain service standards to ensure payment. NASA's oversight, likely through a COR, will monitor performance and address any deficiencies promptly. Contractual clauses regarding performance standards, reporting requirements, and potential penalties for non-compliance also serve as risk mitigators. Furthermore, the competitive award process itself helps mitigate the risk of selecting an underqualified vendor.
How effective is the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method in ensuring value for taxpayers?
The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method aims to balance the benefits of broad competition with specific agency needs that might initially limit the pool of potential offerors. By excluding certain sources, the agency might be targeting specific capabilities or past performance requirements. However, the subsequent 'full and open' aspect ensures that once these initial criteria are met, the competition is as wide as possible. This approach can be effective in ensuring value for taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment among qualified bidders, driving down prices, and encouraging innovation. The effectiveness hinges on the justification for the initial exclusions and the rigor of the subsequent competitive evaluation process.
What is the historical spending pattern for protective services at NASA facilities in California?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for protective services at NASA facilities in California would involve reviewing past contracts awarded for similar services over several fiscal years. This would reveal trends in contract values, duration, types of services procured, and the contractors frequently awarded these services. Understanding this history can help identify any significant increases or decreases in spending, potential sole-source awards, or shifts in competition levels. Such analysis provides context for the current $2.8 million award, indicating whether it represents a typical expenditure, an escalation, or a reduction compared to previous periods, and informs future budget planning and procurement strategies.
What are the implications of the firm fixed-price contract type on contractor performance and government risk?
A firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally considered advantageous for the government when the scope of work is well-defined and risks are manageable. For this protective services contract, FFP means the contractor, Chenega Global Protection, LLC, assumes the primary risk for cost overruns. This incentivizes the contractor to perform efficiently and control costs. From the government's perspective, FFP provides cost certainty, as the total price is fixed regardless of the contractor's actual costs. This reduces the risk of unexpected budget increases. However, it can also incentivize the contractor to cut corners if not properly overseen, making robust performance monitoring by NASA critical to ensure service quality is maintained.
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: 14420 ALBEMARLE POINT PL STE 100, CHANTILLY, VA, 20151
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: $3,094,955
Exercised Options: $3,094,955
Current Obligation: $2,832,042
Actual Outlays: $2,832,042
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 80GSFC23DA004
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2025-03-01
Current End Date: 2026-02-28
Potential End Date: 2026-02-28 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2026-03-04
More Contracts from Chenega Global Protection, LLC
- Armed Security Guards for Atlanta&ft. Collins — $110.1M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- ATL FT Collins Guards Bridge — $33.3M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Base Award for Security and Access Control Services in Support of Usag-Ka — $26.3M (Department of Defense)
- Services — $23.9M (Department of Health and Human Services)
- Nasa Protective Services Contract - South Region (npsc-Sr) KSC Task Order for Baseline and Pre-Priced Items — $16.7M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →