NASA awards $14.8M security contract to Chenega Global Protection, LLC for Texas operations
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $14,837,231 ($14.8M)
Contractor: Chenega Global Protection, LLC
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2024-10-01
End Date: 2025-09-30
Contract Duration: 364 days
Daily Burn Rate: $40.8K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: SECURITY SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77058
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $14.8 million to CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC for work described as: SECURITY SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in safeguarding NASA facilities. 2. Competition dynamics suggest a potentially competitive bidding process for this service. 3. Performance risk is moderate, given the nature of security services. 4. This contract supports essential operational continuity for NASA's Texas-based activities. 5. The award positions Chenega Global Protection as a key provider in the federal security sector.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The contract value of $14.8 million for a one-year period appears reasonable for comprehensive security services. Benchmarking against similar contracts for NASA or other federal agencies of comparable size and scope would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure helps control costs, but the specific scope of services will ultimately determine the 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,' indicating that while the initial intent was broad competition, certain sources were excluded, potentially limiting the pool of bidders. The specific reasons for exclusion are not detailed, but this approach can sometimes lead to fewer competitive bids than a truly open process.
Taxpayer Impact: This limited competition may mean taxpayers did not benefit from the lowest possible price that could have been achieved through a wider, unrestricted bidding process.
Public Impact
NASA facilities in Texas will receive enhanced security coverage. Personnel and assets at these facilities will be protected. The contract ensures the continuity of critical NASA operations. Local workforce in Texas may see employment opportunities in security roles.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for limited competition due to exclusion of sources.
- Reliance on a single contractor for critical security functions.
Positive Signals
- Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
- Contract duration allows for stable service provision.
- Award to an established entity suggests a degree of reliability.
Sector Analysis
The federal security services market is substantial, encompassing a wide range of protective and investigative activities. This contract falls within the broader category of professional, scientific, and technical services. NASA, like other major federal agencies, requires robust security solutions to protect its personnel, facilities, and sensitive information. Spending in this sector is often driven by national security priorities and the need to maintain operational integrity across government operations.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this specific contract award. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the required security services through the most competitive means available under the specified procurement method, rather than specifically targeting small businesses for this particular delivery order.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the contracting officer and relevant program officials within NASA. Accountability measures are typically embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases, though specific performance metrics and detailed oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Federal Protective Service Contracts
- Department of Homeland Security Security Services
- Defense Department Security Contracts
- General Services Administration Schedules
Risk Flags
- Potential for reduced competition due to source exclusion.
- Contract performance hinges on contractor's ability to maintain qualified personnel.
Tags
security-services, nasa, chenega-global-protection, firm-fixed-price, limited-competition, texas, national-aeronautics-and-space-administration, guard-services, professional-services, federal-contracting
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $14.8 million to CHENEGA GLOBAL PROTECTION, LLC. SECURITY SERVICES
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 $14.8 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2024-10-01. End: 2025-09-30.
What is the track record of Chenega Global Protection, LLC with NASA and other federal agencies?
Chenega Global Protection, LLC has a significant history of performing security services for various U.S. federal agencies. A review of federal procurement data indicates numerous awards to Chenega for guard services, physical security, and related protective measures across departments such as Homeland Security, Defense, and Justice. Their experience often includes providing services at sensitive government installations, suggesting a familiarity with federal security requirements and compliance standards. While specific performance ratings for individual contracts are not always public, their consistent presence in the federal contracting space implies a capacity to meet contractual obligations. Further analysis would involve examining past performance evaluations and any documented issues or commendations on specific prior contracts with NASA or similar agencies.
How does the awarded value compare to similar security contracts for NASA facilities?
The awarded value of approximately $14.8 million for a one-year contract for security services at NASA facilities in Texas requires comparison with contracts of similar scope, duration, and geographic coverage. Without specific details on the exact number of personnel, hours, and specialized services included, a precise benchmark is challenging. However, for large-scale federal security contracts, this value falls within a common range. For instance, contracts for similar services at other major federal installations or research centers can range from several million to tens of millions of dollars annually. Factors like the criticality of the assets protected, the threat environment, and the required security clearances for personnel significantly influence pricing. A detailed comparison would necessitate analyzing the specific service requirements outlined in this NASA contract against those of comparable federal security procurements.
What are the primary risks associated with this type of security services contract?
The primary risks associated with this security services contract include potential performance failures, such as inadequate guard presence, delayed response times, or breaches in security protocols, which could compromise NASA assets and personnel. There's also a risk related to personnel turnover and the need for continuous vetting and training of security staff, which can impact service quality and consistency. Contractor financial stability is another consideration, although less common for established firms. Furthermore, the 'limited competition' aspect introduces a risk that the government may not have secured the most cost-effective solution. Finally, adapting to evolving security threats and technological advancements presents an ongoing challenge for both the contractor and the agency.
What is the historical spending pattern for security services at NASA's Texas facilities?
Analyzing historical spending patterns for security services at NASA's Texas facilities would involve examining procurement data for previous contract periods covering similar services. This would reveal trends in contract values, the number of contracts awarded, and the incumbent contractors. For example, one would look for data on whether spending has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing over the past 5-10 years. It would also be important to see if the same contractor has held the award for extended periods or if there has been regular re-competition. Understanding these patterns helps contextualize the current $14.8 million award, indicating whether it represents a typical expenditure, a significant increase, or a decrease compared to historical norms for securing these specific NASA installations.
How does the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' procurement method impact cost-effectiveness?
The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' method is a nuanced approach to procurement. While it starts with the principle of full and open competition, the subsequent exclusion of specific sources narrows the field of potential bidders. This exclusion is typically justified by specific circumstances, such as national security concerns, proprietary information, or the need for compatibility with existing systems. The impact on cost-effectiveness can be mixed. On one hand, it aims to ensure that the selected contractor meets specific, potentially unique, requirements. On the other hand, by reducing the number of bidders, it may lessen the downward pressure on pricing that a truly unrestricted competition could generate. Therefore, the cost-effectiveness hinges on whether the exclusions were truly necessary and if the remaining competition was sufficient to drive a competitive price.
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: $14,837,231
Exercised Options: $14,837,231
Current Obligation: $14,837,231
Actual Outlays: $14,837,231
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Parent Contract
Parent Award PIID: 80KSC022DA001
IDV Type: IDC
Timeline
Start Date: 2024-10-01
Current End Date: 2025-09-30
Potential End Date: 2025-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-11-19
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 →