DoD's $24.2M contract for TAC services awarded to 21st Century/LGC, Inc. shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,194,181 ($24.2M)

Contractor: Aleut Global Solutions, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2000-01-18

End Date: 2005-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,082 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200006!5700!000127!CA03 !21ST CONS/LGC !F0560499C9009 !A!*!P00003 !20000118!20000930!016857281!016857281!020256798!N!1CXN4!TAC SERVICES, INC. !5540 TECH CENTER DR. !COLORADO SPRIN !CO!80919!16000!041!08!COLORADO SPRINGS !EL PASO !COLORADO !0001!+000000030000!N!N!000000000000!Z199!MAINT/OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8744!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!A !N!R!2!003!N!5A!C!N!Z!* !* !N!A!N!*!*!A!B!A!A!* !E!N!A!B!N!*!*!*!*!*!

Place of Performance

Location: COLORADO SPRINGS, EL PASO County, COLORADO, 80919

State: Colorado Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $24.2 million to ALEUT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC for work described as: 200006!5700!000127!CA03 !21ST CONS/LGC !F0560499C9009 !A!*!P00003 !20000118!20000930!016857281!016857281!020256798!N!1CXN4!TAC SERVICES, INC. !5540 TECH CENTER DR. !COLORADO SPRIN !CO!80919!16000!041!08!COLORADO SPRINGS !EL … Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus award fee structure may incentivize spending without strict cost controls. 2. Limited competition, despite being advertised as 'full and open after exclusion of sources,' raises questions about price discovery. 3. The contractor, 21st Century/LGC, Inc., has a track record that warrants further investigation for performance and value. 4. The duration of the contract (over 2000 days) suggests a long-term need, but the specific services are broadly defined. 5. The contract's broad 'Maintenance/Other Miscellaneous Buildings' category makes direct benchmarking difficult. 6. The award amount of $24.2M is significant, necessitating scrutiny of its efficiency and effectiveness.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure, while allowing for flexibility, can lead to higher costs if not managed tightly. The total award amount of $24.2M over its life is substantial. Without detailed breakdowns of the award fee criteria and performance metrics, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. Benchmarking against similar broad maintenance contracts is challenging due to the lack of specific service details and the unique nature of the CPAF. However, the potential for cost overruns inherent in CPAF contracts warrants a cautious assessment.

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,' which is an unusual designation. While it implies an initial broad solicitation, the exclusion of specific sources suggests a narrowed field. The data indicates three bidders participated. The level of competition, while not a sole-source situation, might not have been robust enough to guarantee the most competitive pricing, especially given the broad scope of services.

Taxpayer Impact: The competition level suggests that taxpayers may not have benefited from the lowest possible prices that a more open and direct competition might have yielded. The exclusion of sources could have limited the pool of potential offerors, potentially increasing the final contract cost.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Defense facilities requiring maintenance and other miscellaneous building services. Services delivered include a broad range of building maintenance and support, though specific tasks are not detailed. The geographic impact is centered around Colorado Springs, Colorado, where the contractor is located and services are presumably rendered. Workforce implications include potential job creation for maintenance and support staff managed by the contractor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus award fee structure can lead to higher costs if not managed stringently.
Broad service category ('Maintenance/Other Miscellaneous Buildings') lacks specificity, hindering performance evaluation.
The 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' is an ambiguous procurement method that may limit true competition.
Contract duration of over 2000 days requires ongoing vigilance to ensure continued value and necessity.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it hard to assess contractor efficiency and effectiveness.

Positive Signals

The contract was competed, indicating an effort to solicit offers.
Multiple bidders (3) participated, suggesting some level of market interest.
The contractor is based in Colorado Springs, potentially supporting local employment.
The contract is managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency, implying oversight.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad category of facilities maintenance and support services, a significant sector for government spending. The market for these services is large and diverse, encompassing everything from janitorial services to complex building system repairs. Government contracts in this space often range from small, localized services to large, multi-year Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) vehicles. The $24.2M award is a substantial sum, placing it in the mid-to-large tier for individual facility support contracts.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions for this contract. The prime contractor, 21st Century/LGC, Inc., is not identified as a small business. There is no information regarding subcontracting plans or performance related to small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this specific award is not discernible from the data.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract is managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), which provides oversight for Department of Defense contracts. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure implies performance metrics and award criteria that DCMA would monitor. However, the extent of transparency regarding these metrics, the award fee determination process, and specific oversight activities is not detailed in the provided data. Inspector General jurisdiction would typically apply to DoD contracts, but specific investigations related to this contract are not mentioned.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Facilities Engineering and Maintenance Services
Logistics and Support Services
Construction and Repair Services

Risk Flags

Ambiguous contract scope
Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure
Limited competition despite 'full and open' designation
Lack of detailed performance metrics in provided data
Long contract duration increases risk of scope creep and reduced flexibility

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $24.2 million to ALEUT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC. 200006!5700!000127!CA03 !21ST CONS/LGC !F0560499C9009 !A!*!P00003 !20000118!20000930!016857281!016857281!020256798!N!1CXN4!TAC SERVICES, INC. !5540 TECH CENTER DR. !COLORADO SPRIN !CO!80919!16000!041!08!COLORADO SPRINGS !EL PASO !COLORADO !0001!+000000030000!N!N!000000000000!Z199!MAINT/OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPME!3000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !8744!3!*!*!C!B!A!*!A !N!R!

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ALEUT GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $24.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2000-01-18. End: 2005-09-30.

What is the specific nature of the 'TAC SERVICES' and 'MAINT/OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS' provided under this contract?

The provided data offers limited specificity regarding the exact services. 'TAC SERVICES' is an acronym that is not defined in the data, and 'MAINT/OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS' is a very broad category. It likely encompasses a wide range of facility upkeep, repair, and potentially operational support for various Department of Defense buildings. This could include routine maintenance, minor repairs, groundskeeping, custodial services, and potentially specialized systems support. The lack of precise definition makes it difficult to assess the scope, efficiency, and necessity of the services rendered without further documentation from the contracting agency.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure influence the contractor's performance and cost control compared to other contract types?

A Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract allows the contractor to recover allowable costs plus a base fee, plus an award fee that is determined by the government based on performance against pre-defined criteria. This structure incentivizes the contractor to meet or exceed performance targets to earn the award fee. However, it can also lead to higher overall costs compared to fixed-price contracts, as the government bears the risk of cost overruns and the award fee is performance-dependent. Effective management by the contracting officer is crucial to ensure that the award fee truly reflects exceptional performance and does not simply reward meeting minimum requirements or inflate costs. Without clear and stringent performance metrics, CPAF can be less cost-effective for the government.

What were the specific reasons for excluding certain sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' procurement?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' is unusual and suggests a multi-step procurement process. Typically, 'full and open competition' means all responsible sources are permitted to submit an offer. 'Exclusion of sources' implies that after an initial broad solicitation or market research, certain potential offerors were deemed ineligible or were not solicited for the final proposal request. Reasons for exclusion could include failure to meet specific technical qualifications, past performance issues, or proprietary limitations. However, without further details from the contracting agency (e.g., the solicitation documents or justification for exclusion), it's difficult to ascertain the precise rationale. This method can sometimes limit the breadth of competition and potentially impact price discovery.

What is the track record of 21st Century/LGC, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly regarding performance and cost management?

Information on the specific track record of '21st Century/LGC, Inc.' concerning this particular contract (F0560499C9009) is limited in the provided data. To assess their track record, one would need to examine past performance evaluations, any contract disputes, claims, or modifications associated with their previous federal awards. A comprehensive review would involve searching databases like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for other contracts awarded to this entity, analyzing their performance ratings, and looking for any indications of cost overruns or performance deficiencies. Without this detailed historical data, it's challenging to make a definitive judgment on their reliability and efficiency in managing federal contracts.

How does the $24.2 million total award amount compare to similar building maintenance contracts within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

Benchmarking the $24.2 million award requires comparing it to contracts with similar scope, duration, and complexity. Given the broad description 'MAINT/OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS,' direct comparisons are difficult. However, large-scale facilities maintenance contracts for military bases or federal installations can easily reach tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over their lifespan. For context, Base Operations Support (BOS) contracts, which often include extensive maintenance, can be very large. The $24.2M figure over approximately 5.5 years (2082 days) suggests an average annual value of roughly $4.4 million. This is a significant amount, but within the expected range for comprehensive support services at a substantial facility or installation.

What are the potential risks associated with the long contract duration (over 2000 days) and the broad service definition?

The long duration of over 2000 days (approximately 5.5 years) for a contract with a vaguely defined scope like 'MAINT/OTHER MISCELLANEOUS BUILDINGS' presents several risks. Firstly, it increases the potential for scope creep, where the services required may evolve significantly over time without adequate adjustments to cost or performance expectations. Secondly, it reduces the government's flexibility to adapt to changing needs or adopt new technologies or service providers. Thirdly, the extended period increases the risk of contractor complacency or a decline in service quality if performance monitoring is not rigorous. Finally, the broad definition means that unforeseen costs could arise, and the government might be locked into paying for services that become less critical or efficient over time.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: SEALED BID

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Aleut Corporation (UEI: 020256798)

Address: 5540 TECH CENTER DR STE 100, COLORADO SPRINGS, CO, 05

Business Categories: Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline