DOE's $55M Security Contract Awarded to Golden Services, LLC for Protective Force Services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $54,889,051 ($54.9M)

Contractor: Golden Svcs, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Energy

Start Date: 2018-07-23

End Date: 2024-04-30

Contract Duration: 2,108 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROTECTIVE FORCE SECURITY SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: OAK RIDGE, ANDERSON County, TENNESSEE, 37830

State: Tennessee Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Energy obligated $54.9 million to GOLDEN SVCS, LLC for work described as: PROTECTIVE FORCE SECURITY SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus-award-fee structure incentivizes performance but requires careful monitoring of award fees. 2. With a duration of over 2100 days, this represents a significant long-term commitment for protective services. 3. The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' indicates a competitive process with specific justifications. 4. The award to Golden Services, LLC suggests a strong performance or competitive positioning by the contractor. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 points to a specialized security guard and patrol service. 6. The contract's value of approximately $55 million over its extended period warrants scrutiny for value for money.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $54.9 million over approximately 6 years suggests a substantial investment in security services. While specific pricing details for cost-plus-award-fee contracts can be complex, the award fee mechanism implies that the government aims to achieve good value by incentivizing contractor performance. Benchmarking against similar large-scale protective force contracts would be necessary for a definitive value assessment, but the duration and scope indicate a significant, potentially well-priced, commitment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' which implies that while the competition was open, there were specific reasons for excluding certain sources or a particular approach to the competition. The presence of 4 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition. This type of competition, while not entirely unrestricted, aims to ensure a fair selection process and potentially competitive pricing by allowing multiple qualified entities to bid.

Taxpayer Impact: The moderate competition level suggests that taxpayers likely benefited from a reasonably competitive price, though perhaps not as aggressively priced as a purely full and open competition without exclusions might yield.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Energy facilities requiring robust security and protective services. The contract ensures the continuous delivery of security guard and patrol services, safeguarding government assets and personnel. The contract is geographically focused on Tennessee (ST: TN, SN: TENNESSEE), impacting the local workforce and economy. This contract supports jobs within the security services sector, particularly in the Tennessee region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The security services industry is a significant sector within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services market. This contract falls under the Security Guards and Patrol Services (NAICS 561612) sub-sector. The federal government is a major consumer of these services, particularly for protecting sensitive facilities and assets. The market is characterized by a mix of large, established providers and smaller, specialized firms. This contract represents a substantial portion of spending within this specific niche, likely benchmarked against other large federal security contracts.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this specific contract, as the 'small business set-aside' (ss) and 'small business' (sb) flags are both false. This suggests the contract was not specifically targeted to small businesses. Consequently, the primary contractor, Golden Services, LLC, is likely a larger entity, and there may be limited direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless voluntarily pursued by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Energy contracting officers and program managers. The cost-plus-award-fee structure necessitates robust financial and performance monitoring to ensure that award fees are earned based on merit and that costs remain within reasonable bounds. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting requirements and performance reviews. Depending on the nature of the services and facilities protected, Inspector General oversight may also be applicable.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

department-of-energy, protective-force-security, golden-services-llc, security-guards-and-patrol-services, definitive-contract, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, tennessee, large-contract, long-term-contract, facility-security

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Energy awarded $54.9 million to GOLDEN SVCS, LLC. PROTECTIVE FORCE SECURITY SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GOLDEN SVCS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $54.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2018-07-23. End: 2024-04-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for protective force security services at the Department of Energy, and how does this contract compare?

Historical spending on protective force security services by the Department of Energy (DOE) is substantial, reflecting the critical nature of the facilities and materials they manage. While specific historical data for this exact contract is not provided, the DOE consistently allocates significant budgets to security. This $54.9 million contract, spanning over six years, represents a considerable investment. Comparing it to previous contracts of similar scope and duration would reveal trends in pricing, contractor performance, and the evolution of security requirements. Generally, DOE security spending is driven by national security mandates and the need to protect nuclear materials, research facilities, and personnel, often resulting in long-term, high-value contracts.

How does the performance of Golden Services, LLC on this contract compare to industry benchmarks or their previous federal contracts?

Assessing the performance of Golden Services, LLC on this specific contract requires access to performance evaluations and award fee data, which are not publicly detailed in the provided data. However, their ability to win a significant, long-term contract like this from the Department of Energy suggests a track record deemed satisfactory or superior by the agency. To compare against industry benchmarks, one would analyze metrics such as response times, incident resolution rates, adherence to security protocols, and client satisfaction surveys, if available. A review of their past federal contract performance, including any past performance questionnaires or award decisions, would provide further context on their reliability and effectiveness as a security service provider.

What are the key risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract of this magnitude and duration?

The primary risks with a CPAF contract of this magnitude ($54.9M over ~6 years) revolve around cost control and the justification of award fees. While CPAF incentivizes performance, there's a risk that the 'cost plus' component could lead to higher overall expenditures if not rigorously managed. The 'award fee' portion requires clear, objective criteria and diligent oversight to ensure that bonuses are genuinely earned for exceptional performance, rather than being a de facto increase in profit. For the contractor, risks include not meeting performance targets and thus forfeiting award fees. For the government, the risk lies in potentially overpaying if performance metrics are poorly defined or oversight is lax. The long duration also introduces risks related to changing security needs, inflation, and contractor complacency.

What does the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' designation imply about the procurement process and potential value for taxpayers?

The designation 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' implies that the procurement process began with the intent of broad competition but subsequently involved excluding certain potential offerors or specific types of proposals. This exclusion must be justified by the agency, often due to specific technical requirements, national security concerns, or previous performance issues with certain entities. While it aims for competition, the exclusion of sources can potentially limit the number of bidders and the diversity of solutions considered. For taxpayers, this means that while competition was sought, the final price and solution might be influenced by the reasons for exclusion. A thorough justification for the exclusion is crucial to ensure that the government secured the best possible value and that the process remained fair and transparent.

How does the NAICS code 561612 (Security Guards and Patrol Services) define the scope of work for this contract, and are there potential overlaps with other federal security contracts?

NAICS code 561612, 'Security Guards and Patrol Services,' defines the core scope of work for this contract as providing on-site armed or unarmed security guards, patrol services, and related security system monitoring. This typically includes personnel for access control, surveillance, deterrence, and response to security incidents. Given the Department of Energy's mission, this likely involves protecting critical infrastructure, sensitive research, and personnel. There is potential for overlap with other federal security contracts, particularly those involving physical security at government facilities managed by agencies like the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, or General Services Administration. However, DOE contracts often have unique requirements related to nuclear materials or specialized research facilities, differentiating them from more general security contracts.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation ServicesInvestigation and Security ServicesSecurity Guards and Patrol Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: DE-SOL-0010747

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 414 OLD HOLDERFORD ROAD, KINGSTON, TN, 37763

Business Categories: Category Business, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Limited Liability Corporation, Small Business, Sole Proprietorship, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $66,799,066

Exercised Options: $66,799,066

Current Obligation: $54,889,051

Actual Outlays: $41,245,283

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2018-07-23

Current End Date: 2024-04-30

Potential End Date: 2026-04-11 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2026-04-10

More Contracts from Golden Svcs, LLC

View all Golden Svcs, LLC federal contracts →

Other Department of Energy Contracts

View all Department of Energy contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending