DoD's $291M Facilities Support Contract to Amentum Government Services: A 15-Year Analysis

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $291,336,932 ($291.3M)

Contractor: Amentum Government Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-06-25

End Date: 2009-05-31

Contract Duration: 2,167 days

Daily Burn Rate: $134.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: FORT POLK, VERNON County, LOUISIANA, 71459

State: Louisiana Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $291.3 million to AMENTUM GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Analysis covers a significant 15-year period of facilities support services. 2. Contract awarded through full and open competition, suggesting broad market engagement. 3. Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure incentivizes performance but requires careful oversight. 4. The contract's duration and value indicate a critical, long-term service requirement. 5. Focus on facilities support services highlights the importance of operational infrastructure. 6. The definitive contract type suggests a stable, well-defined service need.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to its long duration and specific service scope. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure means the final cost is variable, dependent on performance metrics. While this can drive efficiency, it also necessitates robust oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable and aligned with awarded fees. Without direct comparisons to similar long-term, comprehensive facilities support contracts, assessing the precise value-for-money is difficult. The total obligated amount of over $291 million over 15 years suggests a substantial investment in maintaining critical infrastructure.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

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 a bid. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and service offerings. The presence of four bidders (no) suggests a reasonable level of competition for this significant facilities support requirement. However, the long-term nature and specialized requirements of such contracts can sometimes limit the pool of truly capable bidders.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best value through market forces. It increases the likelihood of competitive pricing and encourages contractors to offer innovative solutions to win and retain the business.

Public Impact

Provides essential facilities support services, ensuring operational readiness for Department of Defense assets. Benefits military personnel and civilian staff by maintaining a safe and functional working environment. Geographic impact is concentrated in Louisiana (LA), supporting regional military installations. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for personnel skilled in facilities management and maintenance. Ensures continuity of essential services critical to national defense operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure requires diligent monitoring to prevent cost overruns and ensure fair award fees.
Long contract duration (15 years) may lead to contractor complacency if performance metrics are not rigorously enforced.
Potential for scope creep over such an extended period without clear change control processes.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical facilities support could pose risks if contractor performance degrades significantly.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a competitive process that should yield good value.
The 'LA' designation suggests a specific geographic focus, potentially allowing for specialized expertise and efficiency.
The definitive contract type implies a stable and well-defined requirement, reducing ambiguity.
The presence of multiple bidders (4) suggests a healthy level of market interest and capability.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services fall under the broader Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services sector. This sector is characterized by a wide range of services supporting the operations of government and private entities. The market for facilities management is substantial, encompassing maintenance, repair, operations, and administrative support for physical infrastructure. This contract represents a significant portion of spending within this niche, focusing on the unique requirements of military installations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve other large-scale government contracts for base operations support or facilities maintenance.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (sb) was not a stated requirement or focus for this contract (sb: false). There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides. This suggests that the primary focus was on securing the best overall offer through full and open competition, potentially favoring larger, established firms with the capacity to handle such extensive requirements. Subcontracting opportunities for small businesses may exist but are not detailed in this summary data.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure necessitates robust performance monitoring and evaluation to justify award fees. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting mechanisms and potential audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or the Inspector General. The specific Inspector General jurisdiction would be that of the Department of Defense.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Logistics and Facilities Management Services
Government Facilities Maintenance Contracts
Defense Infrastructure Support

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may lead to complacency or outdated practices.
Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires rigorous performance monitoring.
Potential for scope creep over the 15-year period.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical infrastructure support.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $291.3 million to AMENTUM GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMENTUM GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $291.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-06-25. End: 2009-05-31.

What was the contractor's performance history prior to this award?

Information regarding Amentum Government Services, Inc.'s specific performance history prior to the award of this particular contract in 2003 is not detailed in the provided data. However, Amentum (and its predecessor companies like URS) has a long history of providing government services, including extensive work in base operations and facilities support for various military branches. A comprehensive review would require examining past performance evaluations, award fee determinations, and any documented disputes or corrective actions on previous contracts. The longevity and scale of this particular contract suggest a generally satisfactory performance record over its 15-year span, though specific details of early performance are not available here.

How does the per-unit cost of services compare to similar contracts awarded around the same time?

Direct per-unit cost comparison is not feasible with the provided data. The contract is a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) type, meaning the total cost is variable and dependent on performance, making a fixed per-unit cost difficult to establish for benchmarking. Furthermore, the scope of 'Facilities Support Services' is broad and can encompass a wide array of activities (e.g., maintenance, janitorial, security, groundskeeping) that are not itemized here. To conduct a meaningful comparison, one would need detailed breakdowns of service categories and associated costs from similar, concurrently awarded contracts for comparable military installations or government facilities. Without such granular data, any per-unit cost assessment would be speculative.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to determine award fees?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used for determining award fees under this Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) contract. Typically, for facilities support services, KPIs would likely include metrics related to response times for maintenance requests, quality of repairs, preventative maintenance completion rates, safety compliance, energy efficiency targets, customer satisfaction surveys, and adherence to environmental regulations. The specific KPIs would be detailed in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the associated award fee plan. Rigorous monitoring and objective measurement of these KPIs are crucial for the government to justify the award fees paid to the contractor.

What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services within the Department of the Army?

The provided data focuses on a single, long-term contract and does not offer a trend analysis of overall spending for facilities support services within the Department of the Army. However, the significant value ($291M+) and duration (15 years) of this contract indicate a substantial and consistent investment in maintaining critical infrastructure. Historically, the Department of Defense, including the Army, allocates significant portions of its budget to base operations and infrastructure maintenance, as these are essential for mission readiness. Analyzing broader spending patterns would require access to historical budget documents and contract databases covering multiple years and various types of facilities support contracts across the Army.

What are the potential risks associated with a 15-year contract for facilities support?

A 15-year contract for facilities support presents several potential risks. Firstly, there's the risk of contractor complacency; over such a long period, a contractor might reduce efforts if performance monitoring is lax. Secondly, technology and best practices in facilities management evolve rapidly, and a long-term contract might not easily adapt to newer, more efficient methods unless explicitly structured for flexibility. Thirdly, the government risks locking into potentially suboptimal pricing if market conditions change significantly over the contract's life. Finally, institutional knowledge within the government regarding the specifics of the contract and contractor performance might diminish over time, potentially weakening oversight capabilities. Robust contract management, regular performance reviews, and clear mechanisms for incorporating technological advancements are crucial to mitigate these risks.

How does the 'Cost Plus Award Fee' structure impact contractor incentives and government oversight?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPA) structure is designed to incentivize contractor performance by allowing the recovery of allowable costs plus a fee that is composed of a base fee (often fixed or a small percentage of costs) and an award fee. The award fee is determined by the government based on the contractor's performance against pre-defined criteria, often outlined in an Award Fee Plan. This structure incentivizes the contractor to exceed minimum performance standards to maximize their total fee. For the government, it requires diligent oversight and objective performance evaluations to ensure that award fees are justified and that the contractor is delivering exceptional value. It shifts the focus from simply completing tasks to excelling in performance, but necessitates a strong government team capable of fair and thorough assessments.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: AECOM (UEI: 153561212)

Address: 20501 SENECA MEADOWS PKWY STE 300, GERMANTOWN, MD, 20876

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $1,214,515

Exercised Options: $441,237

Current Obligation: $291,336,932

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline