Facilities support services contract awarded to PRIDE INDUSTRIES for over $40 million, spanning nearly five years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $40,342,443 ($40.3M)

Contractor: Pride Industries

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-02-01

End Date: 2016-11-30

Contract Duration: 1,764 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: RECURRING WORK PROGRAM

Place of Performance

Location: EL SEGUNDO, LOS ANGELES County, CALIFORNIA, 90245

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $40.3 million to PRIDE INDUSTRIES for work described as: RECURRING WORK PROGRAM Key points: 1. The contract's value suggests a significant need for ongoing facilities maintenance and support. 2. The duration of the contract indicates a long-term commitment by the Department of the Air Force. 3. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to provide cost certainty for the government. 4. The absence of small business set-aside flags potential missed opportunities for smaller enterprises. 5. The contract's focus on facilities support services is a common requirement across many government agencies. 6. The award to a single contractor may warrant scrutiny regarding potential price efficiencies.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of over $40 million for a period of nearly five years averages approximately $8 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar facilities support contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the firm-fixed-price nature suggests an attempt to control costs, but the lack of competitive bidding raises questions about whether the government secured the best possible price. The absence of a specific contract award value (aw) makes a direct comparison difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not openly competed. This approach is typically used when only one contractor can provide the required services, or in specific circumstances like contract extensions or modifications. The lack of competition means there was no opportunity for multiple vendors to bid, potentially limiting price discovery and the government's ability to negotiate the most favorable terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can sometimes lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the benefits of competitive bidding, which typically drives down prices, are not realized.

Public Impact

The Department of the Air Force benefits from consistent and reliable facilities support services. Personnel at the facilities managed by PRIDE INDUSTRIES will experience maintained operational environments. The contract supports jobs within the facilities management sector, likely benefiting the local California economy. The services provided ensure the readiness and functionality of critical Air Force infrastructure.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have resulted in a higher price than a competitive award.
Sole-source awards can reduce transparency and accountability in government spending.
The long duration of the contract could lead to complacency or reduced innovation from the contractor.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract provides cost predictability for the government.
The contractor, PRIDE INDUSTRIES, has a long-standing relationship with the government, suggesting a level of trust and established performance.
The contract ensures continuity of essential facilities support services.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a broad category encompassing a wide range of services essential for the operation and maintenance of buildings and grounds. This sector is characterized by a mix of large, established providers and smaller, specialized firms. Government contracts in this area are substantial due to the extensive real estate holdings of federal agencies. Benchmarking requires comparing the scope of services, geographic location, and contract type, but annual spending in this sector by the federal government is in the billions.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract may be limited. The absence of set-asides in larger contracts can sometimes concentrate federal spending among larger prime contractors, potentially impacting the broader small business ecosystem that relies on government contracts for growth.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the contracting officer and the Department of the Air Force's procurement and financial management offices. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract provides a degree of cost control. Transparency is somewhat limited due to the sole-source award, but contract details are generally available through federal procurement databases. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support Services
Logistics and Facilities Management
Government Property Management
Maintenance, Repair, and Operations (MRO)

Risk Flags

Sole-source award may indicate lack of competition, potentially leading to higher costs.
Long contract duration increases risk of price escalation and reduced flexibility.
Absence of small business set-aside may limit opportunities for smaller enterprises.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $40.3 million to PRIDE INDUSTRIES. RECURRING WORK PROGRAM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PRIDE INDUSTRIES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $40.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-02-01. End: 2016-11-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities support services by the Department of the Air Force?

The Department of the Air Force, like other branches of the military, consistently spends significant amounts on facilities support services due to its extensive infrastructure requirements. Historical data indicates a steady demand for services such as maintenance, repair, custodial, and groundskeeping across numerous bases and installations. While specific figures fluctuate year-to-year based on budget allocations, infrastructure projects, and operational tempo, facilities support represents a core operational expenditure. Analyzing past contracts, including their duration, value, and competitive nature, reveals trends in how the Air Force procures these essential services. For instance, there's a general trend towards longer-term contracts for stable requirements and an increasing emphasis on performance-based metrics to ensure value for money, though sole-source awards like this one can deviate from purely competitive models.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar facilities support contracts?

Directly comparing the pricing of this $40+ million, nearly five-year facilities support contract to similar ones is challenging without a detailed breakdown of the specific services rendered, the geographic location's cost of living, and the exact scope of work. However, the fact that it was awarded on a sole-source basis raises a flag regarding potential price efficiencies. Competitive bidding typically drives prices down as multiple vendors vie for the contract. In a sole-source scenario, the government relies on negotiation and established pricing structures, which may not always yield the lowest possible cost. To assess value, one would need to benchmark the per-unit costs (e.g., cost per square foot maintained, cost per service call) against industry standards and other government contracts for comparable services, considering the specific operational environment of the Air Force installation.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for facilities support?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award for facilities support is the potential for inflated costs due to the lack of competition. Without competing bids, the contractor may have less incentive to offer the most competitive pricing. Another risk is reduced accountability; while performance metrics should still be enforced, the absence of alternative providers can make it harder to switch contractors if performance issues arise. Furthermore, sole-source awards can limit innovation, as the incumbent contractor might become complacent, knowing there's no immediate threat from competitors. Transparency is also reduced, making it more difficult for the public and oversight bodies to ascertain if the government is receiving optimal value for its investment. Finally, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes heavily reliant on a single provider.

What is the track record of PRIDE INDUSTRIES in performing federal facilities support contracts?

PRIDE INDUSTRIES has a significant history of performing federal contracts, particularly in the realm of facilities support and services. As a large, established provider, they have experience managing complex operations across various government agencies and military branches. Their track record typically involves providing a wide array of services, including maintenance, custodial, groundskeeping, and sometimes specialized support functions. While specific performance metrics for individual contracts are often proprietary or detailed in past performance reviews, their continued success in securing and performing on federal contracts suggests a generally positive history. However, as with any large contractor, there may be instances of performance issues or disputes on specific contracts, which would be detailed in government performance databases and past performance evaluations.

How does the duration of this contract (1764 days) impact its overall value and risk?

The duration of this contract, approximately 4.8 years (1764 days), is substantial for a facilities support services agreement. This long duration offers benefits such as continuity of service and reduced administrative burden associated with frequent re-procurement. For the contractor, it provides revenue stability and allows for investment in personnel and equipment. However, it also increases the risk of price escalation if not adequately managed through contract clauses, and it reduces the government's flexibility to adapt to changing needs or to capitalize on market shifts that might offer better pricing or services. The extended period also heightens the risk of contractor complacency and potential performance degradation over time, necessitating robust oversight and performance management.

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: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: FA281611R0007

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10030 FOOTHILLS BLVD, ROSEVILLE, CA, 95747

Business Categories: AbilityOne Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $41,008,070

Exercised Options: $41,008,070

Current Obligation: $40,342,443

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline