DOT's $55.8M FAA contract for site maintenance awarded to Harris Corporation, spanning over 12 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $55,788,666 ($55.8M)

Contractor: Harris Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2006-12-07

End Date: 2019-09-07

Contract Duration: 4,657 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.0K/day

Competition Type: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FUNDING ON CLIN 3001-HW MAINT- SITE

Place of Performance

Location: MELBOURNE, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32904

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $55.8 million to HARRIS CORPORATION for work described as: FUNDING ON CLIN 3001-HW MAINT- SITE Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant, long-term investment in essential site maintenance services. 2. The follow-on nature of this action suggests a history of satisfactory performance and established relationship. 3. A firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, mitigating risk of cost overruns. 4. The extended duration indicates a critical, ongoing need for these specialized maintenance services. 5. Analysis of the specific services and their impact on FAA operations is key to assessing value. 6. The broad professional, scientific, and technical services NAICS code suggests a wide range of potential activities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $55.8 million over more than 12 years averages approximately $4.6 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar long-term site maintenance contracts for federal agencies is challenging without more specific service details. However, the extended duration and firm-fixed-price nature suggest a potentially stable, albeit significant, investment. Further analysis would require comparing the scope of work and deliverables to industry standards and other government contracts for comparable services to determine true value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract is described as a 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION,' implying that the original award was competed, but this specific follow-on action may have had limited competition. The presence of 3 bidders suggests some level of competition, but it is not full and open. The limited competition could potentially lead to less aggressive pricing compared to a fully open solicitation, though the follow-on nature might indicate a streamlined process based on prior performance.

Taxpayer Impact: While some competition existed, taxpayers may not have benefited from the most aggressive pricing possible if the follow-on action was not fully competed. The limited number of bidders suggests a potential for higher costs than if a broader range of companies had vied for the contract.

Public Impact

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) benefits from consistent and reliable site maintenance, crucial for operational integrity. This contract supports the infrastructure necessary for safe and efficient air traffic control and related aviation services. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florida, where the specific sites requiring maintenance are located. While not explicitly detailed, maintenance services likely support a workforce involved in aviation operations and infrastructure management.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the specific services provided under the broad 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services' NAICS code.
Potential for cost inefficiencies due to limited competition on this follow-on action.
The long contract duration (over 12 years) raises questions about adaptability to evolving technological needs and potential for vendor lock-in.
Absence of clear performance metrics or quality indicators in the provided data makes it difficult to assess effectiveness.
The 'br' value of 11980 is unclear and could represent a risk if it relates to a specific performance metric or cost driver.

Positive Signals

The contract is a 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION,' indicating a potentially successful prior competition and performance.
A firm-fixed-price contract type provides budget certainty for the government, reducing financial risk.
The extended duration suggests a stable, long-term need for the services, implying critical importance.
The award to a single contractor (Harris Corporation) can lead to efficiencies through specialized knowledge and streamlined operations.
The contract has been active for a significant period (awarded 2006, ending 2019), suggesting sustained operational relevance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically NAICS code 541990. This broad category encompasses a wide array of services, including those related to site maintenance for critical infrastructure like that managed by the FAA. The market for such services is substantial, driven by government and private sector needs for specialized support. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific nature of the site maintenance, such as whether it involves facilities, grounds, or specialized equipment.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses mandated by this award. The focus appears to be on the prime contractor's capabilities. Without specific subcontracting plans or goals, the impact on the small business ecosystem is indirect, relying on the prime contractor's procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the Federal Aviation Administration's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability is established through the firm-fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected in relation to the contract's execution or management.

Related Government Programs

FAA Air Traffic Control Operations
Federal Aviation Infrastructure Maintenance
Government Site Support Services
Professional and Technical Services Contracts
Long-Term Government Service Agreements

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Long Contract Duration
Broad NAICS Code
Lack of Specific Performance Metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $55.8 million to HARRIS CORPORATION. FUNDING ON CLIN 3001-HW MAINT- SITE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HARRIS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $55.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-12-07. End: 2019-09-07.

What specific site maintenance services were included under this contract, and how did they contribute to FAA operations?

The provided data categorizes this contract under NAICS code 541990, 'All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services,' and describes the funding as 'FUNDING ON CLIN 3001-HW MAINT- SITE.' This broad classification makes it difficult to ascertain the precise nature of the site maintenance. It could encompass a wide range of activities, from routine facility upkeep (HVAC, janitorial, landscaping) to more specialized technical maintenance of operational equipment or infrastructure. The contribution to FAA operations would be directly tied to the specific services rendered; for example, maintaining the physical integrity of air traffic control facilities or ensuring the operational readiness of support infrastructure is critical for uninterrupted aviation services. Without a detailed statement of work, the exact impact remains speculative but is presumed to be essential for the functional continuity of FAA sites in Florida.

How does the average annual cost of approximately $4.6 million compare to similar FAA site maintenance contracts?

Determining if the average annual cost of approximately $4.6 million is competitive requires a detailed comparison with similar contracts. This comparison should ideally involve contracts for site maintenance of comparable federal facilities, particularly within the aviation sector, and ideally with similar scopes of work. Factors such as the size and complexity of the sites, the specific services required (e.g., custodial, groundskeeping, structural repairs, specialized equipment maintenance), geographic location (which affects labor and material costs), and contract duration all influence pricing. Given the broad NAICS code and limited details, a direct benchmark is not feasible with the provided data. However, for critical infrastructure like FAA sites, consistent and reliable maintenance is paramount, and costs may reflect the specialized nature and high standards required.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm-fixed-price contract of this duration (over 12 years)?

A firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract of over 12 years, while offering cost certainty, carries specific risks. For the government, the primary risk is that the fixed price may become uncompetitive over time if market conditions or the scope of work change significantly, and the contractor may not be incentivized to find cost savings. For the contractor, the risk lies in underestimating costs or facing unforeseen challenges that erode profit margins. Over such a long period, technological advancements or changes in operational requirements could render the contracted services less relevant or necessitate costly modifications. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes dependent on a single provider, potentially limiting future flexibility and negotiation power. Effective oversight and potential for contract modifications or re-competition are crucial to mitigate these long-term risks.

What does the 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION' designation imply about the contractor's performance and future competition?

The designation 'FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION' suggests that the initial contract for these services was awarded through a competitive process. This follow-on action implies that Harris Corporation likely performed satisfactorily under the previous contract, leading the FAA to extend or re-award the work. While this indicates a level of trust and proven capability, it also raises questions about the competition for this specific follow-on award. If it was a sole-source or limited competition follow-on, it might suggest that the market for these specialized services is limited or that the incumbent's performance was exceptionally strong. It implies that while the original requirement was competed, subsequent awards may not have offered the same breadth of competitive pressure, potentially impacting price discovery.

How does the number of bidders (3) on this follow-on action influence price discovery and taxpayer value?

Having three bidders on this follow-on action indicates some level of competition, which is generally positive for price discovery. More bidders typically lead to more competitive pricing as companies vie for the contract. However, three bidders represent a limited competitive environment compared to a full and open competition, which could involve dozens or even hundreds of potential offerors. In a limited competition, the pricing might be higher than what could be achieved in a broader market. Taxpayers benefit from competition, as it drives down costs and encourages efficiency. While three bidders are better than one, the government may not have secured the absolute best possible price. The specific nature of the services and the market size for them would determine if three bidders represent a robust or constrained competitive landscape.

What is the significance of the contract ending in September 2019, given its award date in December 2006?

The contract's duration, spanning from December 2006 to September 2019, represents a period of over 12 years. This extended timeline signifies a long-term, stable requirement for the services provided by Harris Corporation to the Federal Aviation Administration. Such longevity suggests that the maintenance services were deemed critical and consistently necessary for the operational integrity of FAA sites in Florida. For the government, a long-term contract can offer continuity and predictability in service delivery, potentially reducing administrative burden and ensuring consistent support. For the contractor, it provides a substantial revenue stream and the opportunity to develop specialized expertise. However, it also raises questions about the contract's adaptability to evolving needs and the potential for market shifts over such an extended period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › All Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FOLLOW ON TO COMPETED ACTION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: L3harris Technologies, Inc (UEI: 004203337)

Address: 243 SHOEMAKER RD, POTTSTOWN, PA, 19464

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $64,506,020

Exercised Options: $55,788,666

Current Obligation: $55,788,666

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline