DOT's $73M Armed Guard Services Contract with Onpoint Consulting Faces Scrutiny Over Competition and Value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $72,889,329 ($72.9M)

Contractor: Onpoint Consulting, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2004-10-01

End Date: 2011-03-31

Contract Duration: 2,372 days

Daily Burn Rate: $30.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ARMED GUARD SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20590

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $72.9 million to ONPOINT CONSULTING, INC. for work described as: ARMED GUARD SERVICES Key points: 1. Significant spending of $72.9M on armed guard services over 7 years. 2. Competition method 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' raises questions about true market reach. 3. Contract awarded to Onpoint Consulting, Inc. for security guards and patrol services. 4. High duration of 2372 days (approx. 6.5 years) suggests long-term reliance. 5. Fixed price contract type aims for cost certainty.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's total value of $72.9M over 6.5 years is substantial for armed guard services. Benchmarking per-unit costs against similar government contracts for security personnel is difficult without more granular data, but the overall expenditure warrants a closer look at efficiency and necessity.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The competition method 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' is unusual and suggests that potential bidders were limited, potentially impacting price discovery and overall value. This method warrants further investigation to understand why sources were excluded.

Taxpayer Impact: The significant expenditure on a potentially limited competition raises concerns about whether taxpayers received the best possible value for these essential security services.

Public Impact

Taxpayers funded nearly $73 million for armed guard services over a 7-year period. The contract's duration and value indicate a long-term, significant reliance on a single provider for security. Questions arise about the effectiveness and necessity of such extensive armed guard services for the Department of Transportation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Positive Signals

Sector Analysis

The Department of Transportation's spending on security services, specifically armed guards, falls under general administrative and operational support. Benchmarks for this sector can vary widely based on location, threat levels, and specific service requirements, making direct comparisons challenging without more context.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not awarded to small businesses, as 'sb' is false. Further analysis would be needed to determine if opportunities were missed for small business participation in providing these security services.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract's long duration and the specific competition method suggest a need for robust oversight to ensure continued necessity, fair pricing, and adherence to security standards throughout its term.

Related Government Programs

Risk Flags

Tags

security-guards-and-patrol-services, department-of-transportation, dc, definitive-contract, 10m-plus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $72.9 million to ONPOINT CONSULTING, INC.. ARMED GUARD SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ONPOINT CONSULTING, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Immediate Office of the Secretary of Transportation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $72.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-10-01. End: 2011-03-31.

Was the exclusion of sources in the competition truly justified, or did it limit potential cost savings for taxpayers?

The 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' method is inherently restrictive. Without a clear justification for excluding specific sources, it's highly probable that this limitation hindered competitive bidding. This could have led to higher prices than might have been achieved in a truly open market, potentially costing taxpayers more than necessary for armed guard services.

What specific security threats or requirements necessitated such a high expenditure on armed guards for the Department of Transportation over 7 years?

The substantial $72.9M expenditure over 2372 days suggests a significant and ongoing security need within the Department of Transportation. This could range from protecting high-value assets or sensitive facilities to ensuring the safety of personnel in potentially high-risk environments. Understanding the specific threat landscape and operational requirements is crucial to validating the necessity and appropriateness of this spending level.

How was the effectiveness of Onpoint Consulting's armed guard services evaluated throughout the contract's lifecycle?

Effective oversight would involve regular performance evaluations, incident reporting analysis, and potentially independent audits of the guard services provided by Onpoint Consulting. Without documented evidence of such evaluations, it's difficult to ascertain if the $72.9M investment yielded the expected level of security and operational effectiveness. Tracking key performance indicators would be essential.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation ServicesInvestigation and Security ServicesSecurity Guards and Patrol Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPINGHOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 9

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 205 SOUTH WHITING STREET, ALEXANDRIA, VA, 22304

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $93,103,847

Exercised Options: $93,103,847

Current Obligation: $72,889,329

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline

Start Date: 2004-10-01

Current End Date: 2011-03-31

Potential End Date: 2011-03-31 00:00:00

Last Modified: 2021-02-22

More Contracts from Onpoint Consulting, Inc.

View all Onpoint Consulting, Inc. federal contracts →

Other Department of Transportation Contracts

View all Department of Transportation contracts →

Explore Related Government Spending