Army awards $173.8M for facilities support services to The Cube Corporation, with a 2002 start date

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $173,864,219 ($173.9M)

Contractor: Cube Corporation, the

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2002-03-22

End Date: 2009-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,749 days

Daily Burn Rate: $63.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200207!000041!2100!BT60 !TRADOC CONTRACTING ACTIVITY !DABT6001C0014 !A!N! !N! !20020322!20020819!926153875!926153875!926153875!N!THE CUBE CORPORATION !45665 WILLOW POND PLZ !STERLING !VA!20164!26664!141!48!FORT BLISS !EL PASO !TEXAS !+000000211405!N!N!000000000000!M199!OPERATION/OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !561210!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B!F!N!A! !A!N!V!2!002!B! !C!N!Z! ! !N!A!N!N!D! ! ! !A!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001!

Place of Performance

Location: EL PASO, EL PASO County, TEXAS, 79906

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $173.9 million to CUBE CORPORATION, THE for work described as: 200207!000041!2100!BT60 !TRADOC CONTRACTING ACTIVITY !DABT6001C0014 !A!N! !N! !20020322!20020819!926153875!926153875!926153875!N!THE CUBE CORPORATION !45665 WILLOW POND PLZ !STERLING !VA!20164!26664!141!48!FORT BLISS !EL PA… Key points: 1. Contract value of $173.8M over its life. 2. Awarded by the Department of the Army. 3. Services are categorized under Facilities Support Services. 4. Contract duration of approximately 7.5 years. 5. Awarded via full and open competition. 6. The Cube Corporation is the sole awardee. 7. Contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee. 8. Performance location is Fort Bliss, Texas.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $173.8 million for facilities support services over 7.5 years suggests an average annual value of approximately $23.1 million. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for large-scale facilities management at military installations would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type indicates that the contractor's fee is tied to performance, which can incentivize efficiency and quality, but also carries inherent risks of cost overruns if not managed tightly. Without specific performance metrics or comparisons to industry standards for similar services, a definitive assessment of value is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. The data does not specify the number of bids received, but the fact that it was competed broadly suggests a potentially competitive environment. Full and open competition is generally favored as it allows for the widest possible range of solutions and can lead to better pricing through market forces. The absence of a limited or sole-source justification implies that the Army sought to leverage the competitive marketplace.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from full and open competition as it typically drives down prices and encourages innovation by allowing multiple companies to vie for the contract. This process increases the likelihood of securing the best value for the government's investment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Army, receiving facilities support services. Services include operations and maintenance for buildings and infrastructure. Geographic impact is concentrated at Fort Bliss, El Paso, Texas. Workforce implications include potential employment opportunities for support staff at the installation. The contract supports the operational readiness and infrastructure management of a major military installation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) can lead to higher costs if award fees are consistently maximized without strict cost controls.
Long contract duration (7.5 years) may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing needs or market conditions.
Lack of specific performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess contractor performance.
Potential for cost overruns inherent in CPAF contracts if not rigorously managed.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
The contract type (CPAF) incentivizes contractor performance through award fees.
The contractor, The Cube Corporation, has secured a significant contract, indicating a level of capability.
Services are essential for the functioning of a major military installation.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services, categorized under NAICS code 561210, encompasses a broad range of services including operating and maintaining buildings and other facilities. This sector is critical for government operations, particularly in maintaining military installations. The total contract value of $173.8 million over its lifespan places it as a significant award within this service category. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale facilities management contracts awarded by federal agencies, especially within the Department of Defense, to assess pricing and scope.

Small Business Impact

The provided 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 stemming from a small business set-aside. The Cube Corporation, as the prime contractor, would determine any subcontracting opportunities. Without further information on the contractor's subcontracting plan or goals, the impact on the small business ecosystem is not discernible from this data alone.

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 (CPAF) structure necessitates robust oversight to ensure that award fees are justified by performance and that costs are reasonable and allocable. Transparency would be enhanced through regular reporting requirements from the contractor and potential audits. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

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

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure.
Long contract duration may limit flexibility.
Lack of specific performance metrics in public data.
Unknown number of bidders in full and open competition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $173.9 million to CUBE CORPORATION, THE. 200207!000041!2100!BT60 !TRADOC CONTRACTING ACTIVITY !DABT6001C0014 !A!N! !N! !20020322!20020819!926153875!926153875!926153875!N!THE CUBE CORPORATION !45665 WILLOW POND PLZ !STERLING !VA!20164!26664!141!48!FORT BLISS !EL PASO !TEXAS !+000000211405!N!N!000000000000!M199!OPERATION/OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !561210!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CUBE CORPORATION, THE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $173.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2002-03-22. End: 2009-09-30.

What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at Fort Bliss?

Analyzing historical spending for facilities support services at Fort Bliss prior to and following this contract award would provide crucial context. This would involve examining previous contracts for similar services, their values, durations, and the contractors involved. A trend analysis could reveal whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable over time. It would also help identify if The Cube Corporation has been a consistent provider or if there has been contractor turnover. Understanding these patterns can highlight potential cost efficiencies or escalating service demands. Without access to specific historical contract data for Fort Bliss facilities support, a precise trend cannot be determined, but such an analysis is vital for long-term budget planning and identifying potential cost-saving opportunities.

How does the annual value of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar services at large military installations?

The annual value of this contract, approximately $23.1 million ($173.8M / 7.5 years), needs to be benchmarked against industry standards for facilities support services at comparable large military installations. This comparison should consider factors such as the scope of services (e.g., maintenance, repair, operations, groundskeeping), the size and complexity of the facilities managed, and the geographic location. Industry reports from organizations like the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) or government accountability reports can provide benchmarks. If this contract's annual value is significantly higher or lower than comparable contracts, it could indicate either exceptional value or potential overpricing/underbidding. A detailed comparison requires access to specific contract details and market data.

What specific performance metrics are used to determine the 'Award Fee' for The Cube Corporation?

The 'Award Fee' component of a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract is contingent upon the contractor meeting or exceeding specific performance objectives. For this facilities support services contract, these metrics likely include, but are not limited to, response times for maintenance requests, quality of repairs, preventative maintenance completion rates, adherence to safety standards, energy efficiency targets, and overall customer satisfaction surveys from installation personnel. The government establishes a performance evaluation plan outlining these metrics and the associated fee structure. Without access to the specific Performance Work Statement (PWS) and the associated award fee plan for this contract, the exact metrics and their weighting remain unknown. Rigorous oversight is required to ensure these metrics are objective and fairly applied.

What is The Cube Corporation's track record with similar government contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Assessing The Cube Corporation's track record with similar government contracts, especially within the Department of Defense, is crucial for understanding their capability and reliability. This involves reviewing their past performance on contracts for facilities support, base operations, or related services. Key indicators include contract completion history (on time and within budget), past performance ratings (if publicly available), any history of contract disputes or terminations, and their experience with CPAF or similar incentive-based contract types. A positive track record suggests a lower risk for this current contract. Conversely, a history of performance issues could indicate potential risks for the Army. Further investigation into federal procurement databases and past performance information repositories would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

What are the potential risks associated with the 7.5-year duration of this contract?

A contract duration of approximately 7.5 years presents several potential risks. Firstly, it may reduce the government's flexibility to adapt to evolving requirements or technological advancements in facilities management over that period. Secondly, long-term contracts can sometimes lead to complacency on the part of the contractor if oversight is not consistently rigorous. Thirdly, market conditions, material costs, and labor rates can fluctuate significantly over such a long timeframe, potentially impacting the cost-effectiveness of the contract, especially under a CPAF structure where fees are tied to performance. Finally, it ties a significant portion of the budget to a single provider for an extended period, potentially limiting opportunities for other capable firms to compete for work.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Babcock International Group PLC (UEI: 503172199)

Address: 5755 DUPREE DR NW STE 220, ATLANTA, GA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline