Army's $926M Facilities Operations Contract Awarded to CUBE CORPORATION for Long-Term Support
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $9,903,572 ($9.9M)
Contractor: Cube Corporation, the
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 1999-12-01
End Date: 2008-03-31
Contract Duration: 3,043 days
Daily Burn Rate: $3.3K/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: 200012!96CE!000002!CW54 !USA ENGINEER DISTRICT WILMINGTON!DACW5400C0001 !A!*!* !19991201!20001001!926153875!926153875!926153875!N!041Y2!CUBE CORPORATION !45665 WILLOW POND PLAZA !STERLING !VA!20164!09016!117!51!BOYDTON !MECKLENBURG !VIRGINIA !0001!+000001611680!N!N!000000000000!S216!FACILITIES OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !5000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8744!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !N!R!2!004!N!5A!C!N!Z!* !* !N!A!N!*!*!A!A!A!A!* !D!N!A!B!N!*!*!*!*!*!
Place of Performance
Location: BOYDTON, MECKLENBURG County, VIRGINIA, 23917
State: Virginia Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $9.9 million to CUBE CORPORATION, THE for work described as: 200012!96CE!000002!CW54 !USA ENGINEER DISTRICT WILMINGTON!DACW5400C0001 !A!*!* !19991201!20001001!926153875!926153875!926153875!N!041Y2!CUBE CORPORATION !45665 WILLOW POND PLAZA !STERLING !VA!20164!09016!117!51!BOYDTON !MEC… Key points: 1. Contract awarded for facilities operations support services, indicating a need for ongoing maintenance and management. 2. The contract's duration of over 3000 days suggests a long-term strategic partnership for essential services. 3. Awarded by the Department of the Army, highlighting a significant commitment to infrastructure upkeep. 4. The contract type (Cost Plus Award Fee) suggests performance incentives are tied to successful service delivery. 5. The significant total value points to the scale and complexity of the facilities managed. 6. The contract was competed, implying an effort to secure competitive pricing for these services.
Value Assessment
Rating: good
The total award amount of $926,153,875 over approximately 8.3 years represents a substantial investment in facilities operations. While a direct per-unit cost comparison is difficult without more granular data on services rendered, the overall value suggests a significant scope of work. Benchmarking against similar large-scale facilities management contracts would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment, but the competitive nature of the award provides some assurance of reasonable pricing.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
This contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' indicating that the solicitation was broadly advertised, but specific exclusions were applied. The presence of multiple bidders (4 were noted) suggests a competitive environment, which typically drives better pricing and service quality. The exclusion of sources, if clearly justified and documented, should not inherently detract from the competitive process.
Taxpayer Impact: The competitive award process is beneficial for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best possible price and value for essential facilities operations services, preventing potential overspending associated with sole-source or limited competition scenarios.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Army and its personnel, who rely on well-maintained facilities for operations. Services delivered include comprehensive facilities operations support, likely encompassing maintenance, repair, and management of various infrastructure. The geographic impact is centered around the facilities managed by the US Army Engineer District Wilmington, potentially across multiple installations. Workforce implications include the potential for direct and indirect employment opportunities for personnel involved in facilities management and support.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- The 'Cost Plus Award Fee' contract type can sometimes lead to higher costs if award criteria are not tightly managed.
- The long duration of the contract may reduce flexibility to adapt to changing operational needs or technological advancements.
- Potential for scope creep if the definition of 'facilities operations support services' is not precisely delineated.
Positive Signals
- Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust selection process.
- The significant contract value indicates a high level of trust and capability demonstrated by CUBE CORPORATION.
- Long-term contract provides stability and predictability for both the government and the contractor.
Sector Analysis
This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of government operations. This sector encompasses a wide range of services including maintenance, repair, custodial, and security for government-owned or leased facilities. The market size for such services is substantial, driven by the vast real estate holdings of federal agencies. This specific contract represents a significant portion of spending within this niche, reflecting the Army's commitment to maintaining its operational infrastructure.
Small Business Impact
The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss=false, sb=false). While CUBE CORPORATION is the prime contractor, there is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. Further investigation into subcontracting goals and performance would be needed to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of the Army and the US Army Engineer District Wilmington. Mechanisms likely include regular performance reviews, milestone tracking, and financial audits, especially given the Cost Plus Award Fee structure. Transparency is generally expected for federal contracts, though specific details of performance and cost breakdowns may be subject to proprietary or security considerations.
Related Government Programs
- Base Operations Support Services
- Facilities Engineering and Maintenance
- Real Property Management
- Government Infrastructure Support
- Department of Defense Facilities Contracts
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may limit flexibility.
- Cost Plus Award Fee structure requires diligent oversight to control costs.
- Potential for contractor complacency over the contract's lifespan.
Tags
department-of-defense, department-of-the-army, facilities-support-services, definitive-contract, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition, virginia, large-contract, infrastructure-support, operations-and-maintenance
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $9.9 million to CUBE CORPORATION, THE. 200012!96CE!000002!CW54 !USA ENGINEER DISTRICT WILMINGTON!DACW5400C0001 !A!*!* !19991201!20001001!926153875!926153875!926153875!N!041Y2!CUBE CORPORATION !45665 WILLOW POND PLAZA !STERLING !VA!20164!09016!117!51!BOYDTON !MECKLENBURG !VIRGINIA !0001!+000001611680!N!N!000000000000!S216!FACILITIES OPERATIONS SUPPORT SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !5000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8744!3!*!*!*!B!A!*!A !N!R!
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 $9.9 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 1999-12-01. End: 2008-03-31.
What is the historical spending pattern for facilities operations support services by the Department of the Army?
Historical spending on facilities operations support services by the Department of the Army is substantial and consistent, reflecting the continuous need to maintain a vast array of installations and infrastructure. While specific figures fluctuate year-to-year based on budget allocations, modernization efforts, and operational tempo, the Army consistently allocates billions of dollars annually to ensure its facilities are operational, safe, and secure. This includes spending on maintenance, repair, utilities, and management services. Contracts like the one awarded to CUBE CORPORATION are indicative of this ongoing investment. Analyzing trends over the past decade would reveal patterns related to major construction projects, base realignments, and shifts in outsourcing strategies for these essential services.
How does the performance of CUBE CORPORATION on this contract compare to industry benchmarks for facilities operations?
Assessing CUBE CORPORATION's performance against industry benchmarks requires detailed performance metrics from the contract, which are not fully available in the provided data. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for facilities operations typically include response times for maintenance requests, preventative maintenance completion rates, energy efficiency improvements, and customer satisfaction scores. The 'Cost Plus Award Fee' structure suggests that performance is formally evaluated, with potential for award fees tied to meeting or exceeding defined targets. Without access to these specific performance reports or independent audits, a direct comparison to industry averages for uptime, cost-effectiveness, or service quality is challenging. However, the renewal or continuation of such a large contract often implies a satisfactory level of performance.
What are the primary risks associated with a long-term Cost Plus Award Fee contract for facilities operations?
Long-term Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts for facilities operations present several risks. Firstly, the 'cost-plus' nature means the government pays the contractor's allowable costs plus a fee, which can lead to cost overruns if not meticulously managed. The 'award fee' component introduces a risk that the contractor may focus heavily on achieving easily measurable metrics to maximize their fee, potentially neglecting less quantifiable but still critical aspects of facility management. For the government, there's a risk of insufficient oversight leading to inflated costs or subpar performance if the award criteria are not sufficiently stringent or if the contractor finds ways to game the system. Furthermore, the long duration (over 8 years in this case) can lead to contractor complacency or a lack of incentive to innovate if the contract terms are not regularly reviewed and updated to reflect evolving needs and technologies.
What is the typical market size for facilities support services procured by the Department of Defense?
The market size for facilities support services procured by the Department of Defense (DoD) is exceptionally large, representing a significant portion of the agency's overall contracting budget. The DoD manages an extensive global portfolio of real property, encompassing bases, training ranges, administrative buildings, and housing. Services procured include a wide spectrum, from routine maintenance and repair (janitorial, landscaping, HVAC) to complex operations like energy management, infrastructure upgrades, and specialized technical support. Industry reports and government spending analyses consistently place the annual DoD spending on facilities operations and maintenance in the tens of billions of dollars. This vast market supports numerous contractors, ranging from large, diversified service providers to specialized small businesses.
How does the competition level for this contract (4 bidders) impact pricing and value for taxpayers?
A competition level involving 4 bidders for a contract of this magnitude generally has a positive impact on pricing and taxpayer value. With multiple entities vying for the contract, there is increased pressure on each bidder to offer competitive pricing and demonstrate superior value propositions to win the award. This competitive dynamic helps to drive down costs compared to a sole-source or limited-bid scenario. It also encourages innovation and efficiency as contractors seek to differentiate themselves. While 4 bidders is a healthy number, the optimal level of competition can vary depending on the complexity and specialization required. However, having multiple qualified bidders typically leads to a more robust price discovery process, ultimately benefiting the taxpayer through potentially lower overall costs and higher quality service delivery.
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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Contractor Details
Parent Company: Babcock International Group PLC (UEI: 503172199)
Address: 45665 WILLOW POND PLAZA, STERLING, VA, 20164
Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 1999-12-01
Current End Date: 2008-03-31
Potential End Date: 2008-03-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2021-03-28
More Contracts from Cube Corporation, the
- THE Contractor Shall Provide Support in the Following Areas: Program Management Facilities Engineering AT WFF Operations and Maintenance of Facilities Construction - Building and Renovation of Buildings Janitorial - Cleaning Buildings Grounds Services - Cutting Grass Chemical Laboratory - Water, ETC. Testing Occupational Health Clinic Environmental AT WFF Security Emergency Telecommunications - Data and Phone Oversite Administrative Services Logistics - Packaging, Accessing Equipment, Vehicles Navy Financial Services — $382.9M (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
- 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! — $173.9M (Department of Defense)
- 200110!000312!5700!CA09 !45 Cons/Lgc !F0865001C0058 !A!N!*!Y! !20010524!20070930!926153875!926153875!926153875!n!cube Corporation !45665 Willow Pond Plaza !sterling !va!20164!55375!009!12!patrick AFB !brevard !florida !+000004139150!n!n!000000000000!r706!logistics Support Services !S1 !services !3000!NOT Discernable or Classified !561210!*!*!3! ! ! !*!*!*!B!*!*!A! !A !N!J!2!003!K! !C!N!A! ! !y!a!n!n!d! ! ! !d!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! — $34.2M (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $15.7M (Department of Defense)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)