DOE's $408M Facilities Support Services Contract Awarded to Swift & Staley Inc. for Kentucky Operations
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $407,971,074 ($408.0M)
Contractor: Swift & Staley Inc.
Awarding Agency: Department of Energy
Start Date: 2015-10-02
End Date: 2025-09-30
Contract Duration: 3,651 days
Daily Burn Rate: $111.7K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE
Sector: Other
Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT - PADUCAH INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES
Place of Performance
Location: KEVIL, MCCRACKEN County, KENTUCKY, 42053
State: Kentucky Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Energy obligated $408.0 million to SWIFT & STALEY INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT - PADUCAH INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract's value of over $400 million over a decade suggests a significant, long-term need for facilities support. 2. The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' indicates a competitive process, but the exclusion warrants further scrutiny. 3. The duration of the contract (over 10 years) presents potential risks related to evolving needs and contractor performance over time. 4. Facilities Support Services is a broad category, and understanding the specific services rendered is crucial for assessing value. 5. The contract's fixed-price nature aims to control costs, but requires careful monitoring to ensure quality and prevent scope creep.
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without detailed service breakdowns and comparable contract data. However, a decade-long, multi-hundred-million-dollar award for facilities support suggests a substantial investment. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control, but the ultimate value will depend on the quality and efficiency of services delivered. Without specific performance metrics or comparisons to similar-sized facilities support contracts, a definitive value assessment is difficult.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: full-and-open
The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources.' This suggests that while the competition was open, certain sources were excluded from the initial bidding process, which could indicate specific technical requirements or past performance considerations. The number of bidders (5) is a moderate level of competition, which can help in price discovery but may not be as robust as a fully unrestricted open competition.
Taxpayer Impact: The competitive process, even with exclusions, likely resulted in a more favorable price for taxpayers than a sole-source award. However, the exclusion of sources might have limited the potential for even greater cost savings through broader competition.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Energy and its facilities in Kentucky, which will receive essential support services. Services likely include maintenance, repair, custodial, groundskeeping, and potentially security for DOE installations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Kentucky, supporting federal operations within the state. The contract supports jobs within the facilities management and maintenance sectors, contributing to the local workforce.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for contractor lock-in due to the long contract duration.
- Risk of service quality degradation over the contract's extended period.
- The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition process warrants investigation into the rationale and potential impact on cost.
Positive Signals
- Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty.
- A competitive bidding process, even with exclusions, suggests efforts to secure a reasonable price.
- The contract duration indicates a stable, long-term partnership for essential services.
Sector Analysis
Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a significant sector within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This contract represents a substantial portion of spending within this niche for the Department of Energy in Kentucky. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale government facilities management contracts across different agencies and regions to gauge cost-effectiveness and market rates.
Small Business Impact
The contract indicates that small business participation was not a primary set-aside consideration, as 'sb' is false. This suggests that the prime contractor, Swift & Staley Inc., is likely a large business. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which could be a missed opportunity for small business engagement. Further review of subcontracting reports would be necessary to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Energy's contracting officer and program managers. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of accountability for cost. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of performance metrics and any modifications to the contract. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.
Related Government Programs
- Department of Energy Facilities Operations
- Government Facilities Maintenance Contracts
- Infrastructure Support Services
- Federal Facilities Management
Risk Flags
- Long contract duration may lead to evolving needs not fully captured in the initial scope.
- Exclusion of sources in competition could limit price discovery and potentially increase costs.
- Performance monitoring over a decade is critical to ensure sustained quality and value.
Tags
facilities-support-services, department-of-energy, kentucky, definitive-contract, firm-fixed-price, full-and-open-competition, large-contract, long-term-contract, infrastructure, facilities-management
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Energy awarded $408.0 million to SWIFT & STALEY INC.. IGF::OT::IGF CONTRACT - PADUCAH INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT SERVICES
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is SWIFT & STALEY INC..
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: Department of Energy (Department of Energy).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $408.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2015-10-02. End: 2025-09-30.
What specific facilities support services are included under this contract, and how do they align with the Department of Energy's operational needs in Kentucky?
The contract falls under NAICS code 561210, Facilities Support Services. This broad category typically encompasses a range of services essential for the operation and maintenance of government facilities. These can include, but are not limited to, building operations, maintenance and repair (HVAC, electrical, plumbing), custodial services, grounds maintenance, waste management, pest control, and potentially security services. For the Department of Energy (DOE) in Kentucky, these services are critical for ensuring the safe, secure, and efficient functioning of its research, administrative, or operational sites. The specific alignment would depend on the nature of the DOE facilities in the region; for instance, if they house sensitive equipment or require specialized environmental controls, the facilities support services would be tailored accordingly. A detailed statement of work (SOW) within the contract would provide the precise breakdown of services required.
How does the awarded price of approximately $408 million over 10 years compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities support contracts of this scale?
Benchmarking the $408 million contract value requires detailed comparison with similar-sized facilities support contracts, considering factors like geographic location, type of facilities supported (e.g., research labs vs. administrative offices), specific services included, and contract duration. Without access to proprietary industry data or a comprehensive database of government contracts with detailed service breakdowns, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, for a decade-long contract of this magnitude, the price suggests a significant commitment. Government contracts often aim for cost efficiencies through bulk purchasing and competitive bidding, which may result in different pricing structures compared to purely commercial contracts. The firm fixed-price nature aims to provide cost certainty, but the true value is realized through efficient service delivery and adherence to quality standards. A comparative analysis would ideally look at cost-per-square-foot or cost-per-service-unit across comparable government facilities.
What were the key factors that led to the exclusion of certain sources in the 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' process?
The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' implies that the solicitation was initially intended for broad competition, but specific criteria were applied to exclude certain potential offerors. The reasons for exclusion typically stem from stringent requirements outlined in the solicitation, such as specialized technical capabilities, unique past performance records, specific security clearances, or demonstrated experience with particular types of government facilities or equipment. For instance, if the DOE facilities in Kentucky require highly specialized maintenance for unique research equipment or infrastructure, only contractors possessing that specific expertise might be considered eligible. The exclusion aims to ensure that only qualified and capable vendors participate, thereby increasing the likelihood of successful contract performance. However, it also means that the competitive pool is narrowed, which could potentially impact the final price achieved.
What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this length (over 10 years), and what mitigation strategies are in place?
A contract spanning over 10 years presents several potential risks. Firstly, there's the risk of contractor performance degradation over time, as motivation may wane or operational efficiencies might not be maintained. Secondly, the needs of the Department of Energy could evolve significantly over a decade due to technological advancements, policy changes, or shifts in research priorities, potentially rendering the original scope of services outdated or insufficient. Thirdly, long-term contracts can sometimes lead to complacency or a lack of aggressive cost management by the contractor. Mitigation strategies typically include robust performance monitoring mechanisms, clearly defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), regular contract reviews, and provisions for contract modifications or re-negotiations to adapt to changing requirements. The firm fixed-price structure provides some cost control, but active contract management and oversight are crucial to ensure continued value and alignment with DOE objectives throughout the contract's life.
How has Swift & Staley Inc. performed on previous government contracts, particularly those involving facilities support services?
Assessing Swift & Staley Inc.'s past performance is crucial for understanding the potential success of this contract. A review of their contract history with federal agencies, particularly the Department of Energy or other entities requiring similar facilities support services, would reveal their track record. Key indicators to examine include on-time delivery, adherence to budget, quality of services rendered, responsiveness to issues, and any history of contract disputes, terminations, or performance-related penalties. Publicly available contract databases and performance rating systems (like the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) can provide insights. Without specific data on Swift & Staley's past performance on comparable contracts, it is difficult to definitively assess their capability to meet the demands of this significant award.
What is the total historical spending by the Department of Energy on facilities support services, and how does this contract fit into that pattern?
To understand this contract's place within the Department of Energy's (DOE) spending patterns, one would need to analyze historical data on facilities support services. This would involve aggregating spending across various DOE sites and programs for NAICS code 561210 and potentially related codes over several fiscal years. This analysis would reveal trends in overall investment in facilities management, identify major contractors, and highlight any significant shifts in spending levels or contract types. The $408 million award to Swift & Staley Inc. represents a substantial, long-term commitment for facilities support in Kentucky. Its significance would be gauged by comparing it to the DOE's total annual or historical spending on similar services nationwide and within the region. If historical spending has been fragmented across many smaller contracts, this large award might indicate a consolidation strategy. Conversely, if the DOE typically awards large, long-term contracts, this would be in line with past practices.
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
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: DE-SOL-0006383
Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 101 LIBERTY DR STE 7, KEVIL, KY, 42053
Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $438,950,551
Exercised Options: $438,950,551
Current Obligation: $407,971,074
Actual Outlays: $226,884,142
Subaward Activity
Number of Subawards: 111
Total Subaward Amount: $62,667,021
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2015-10-02
Current End Date: 2025-09-30
Potential End Date: 2025-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2025-09-18
More Contracts from Swift & Staley Inc.
- Infrastructure Services for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant — $133.3M (Department of Energy)
- Infrastructure Services for Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant — $53.3M (Department of Energy)
Other Department of Energy Contracts
- Federal Contract — $48.1B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- ,Ct::igf Contract Award De-Na0003525 to the National Technology&engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (ntess) for the Management and Operation of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration's Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) — $41.7B (National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC)
- Management and Operation of the OAK Ridge National Laboratory — $40.8B (Ut-Battelle LLC)
- TAS::89 0240::TAS This Performance-Based Management Contract (pbmc) IS for the Management and Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (llnl). the Contractor Shall, in Accordance With the Provisions of This Contract, Accomplish the Missions and Programs Assigned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Manage and Operate the Laboratory. the Laboratory IS ONE of Does Office of Defense Program Multi-Program Laboratories. the Laboratory IS a Federally Funded Research and Development Institution (established in Accordance With the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 35 and Operated Under This Management and Operating (M&O) Contract, AS Defined in FAR 17.6 and Dear 917.6 — $40.8B (Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC)
- M&O of Lanl BR of U of CA — $35.3B (Regents of the University of California, the)