DoD's $22M Airfield Management Contract with Satellite Services Inc. Faces Scrutiny Over Competition and Value
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $22,033,049 ($22.0M)
Contractor: Satellite Services Inc
Awarding Agency: Department of Defense
Start Date: 2007-08-01
End Date: 2014-07-31
Contract Duration: 2,556 days
Daily Burn Rate: $8.6K/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: AIRFIELD MGMT FUNCTION
Place of Performance
Location: HOMESTEAD, MIAMI-DADE County, FLORIDA, 33039, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
State: Florida Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
Department of Defense obligated $22.0 million to SATELLITE SERVICES INC for work described as: AIRFIELD MGMT FUNCTION Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Satellite Services Inc. for airfield management services represents a significant expenditure of $22 million. 2. The procurement method, 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' suggests potential limitations in the competitive landscape. 3. While the contract duration is substantial (2556 days), the lack of small business participation raises concerns about broader economic impact. 4. The sector is Facilities Support Services, a critical but often overlooked area of government operations.
Value Assessment
Rating: questionable
The contract's value of $22 million over approximately 7 years needs careful benchmarking against similar airfield management contracts. Without detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons, it's difficult to ascertain if the pricing reflects fair market value or if potential inefficiencies are embedded.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' indicates that while competition was sought, it was not entirely unrestricted. This method can sometimes lead to higher prices if the pool of eligible bidders is artificially narrowed, potentially limiting price discovery.
Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition may have resulted in taxpayers paying a premium for these services compared to what might have been achieved in a truly open market.
Public Impact
Taxpayers may be overpaying due to restricted competition in essential airfield management services. The lack of small business involvement limits opportunities for smaller, potentially more agile service providers. The long contract duration could lead to vendor lock-in and reduced flexibility for the Air Force. Transparency in the pricing structure is crucial to ensure accountability for public funds.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Limited competition
- No small business participation
- Long contract duration
- Lack of detailed cost transparency
Positive Signals
- Essential service provision
- Established vendor relationship
Sector Analysis
This contract falls under Facilities Support Services, a broad category encompassing maintenance, management, and operational support for government facilities. Benchmarks for this sector vary widely based on the specific services and facility type, but consistent competition and cost control are generally expected.
Small Business Impact
The contract data indicates no small business participation (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the procurement process or the nature of the services may have inadvertently excluded smaller businesses, missing opportunities for economic development and potentially more competitive pricing.
Oversight & Accountability
The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' method warrants further oversight to ensure it was justified and did not unduly restrict competition. Post-award monitoring of performance and costs is essential for accountability.
Related Government Programs
- Facilities Support Services
- Department of Defense Contracting
- Department of the Air Force Programs
Risk Flags
- Limited competition raises price concerns.
- Lack of small business participation.
- Long contract duration may reduce flexibility.
- Potential for cost inefficiencies due to restricted bidding.
- Need for detailed cost transparency and benchmarking.
Tags
facilities-support-services, department-of-defense, fl, dca, 10m-plus
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
Department of Defense awarded $22.0 million to SATELLITE SERVICES INC. AIRFIELD MGMT FUNCTION
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is SATELLITE SERVICES INC.
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 $22.0 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2007-08-01. End: 2014-07-31.
What specific factors led to the exclusion of sources in this 'full and open competition,' and were these justifications robust?
The exclusion of sources suggests that certain requirements or pre-qualification criteria may have limited the eligible bidder pool. Robust justifications would typically involve demonstrating that only specific vendors possessed unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or were the sole providers of essential components necessary for airfield management. Without detailed documentation, it's difficult to assess if these exclusions were truly necessary or if they served to limit competition artificially.
How does the per-unit cost of specific airfield management tasks under this contract compare to industry benchmarks or similar government contracts?
A detailed analysis of the contract's line items and associated costs is needed to benchmark against industry standards. Factors like labor rates, equipment usage, and overhead allocation should be compared. If Satellite Services Inc.'s pricing for specific tasks like runway maintenance, lighting system upkeep, or navigational aid management significantly exceeds benchmarks, it indicates potential overpayment and warrants a review of the contract's cost-effectiveness.
What is the long-term strategic impact of awarding such a lengthy contract (2556 days) without small business involvement on the Air Force's operational flexibility and access to innovation?
A long contract duration can lead to vendor lock-in, potentially stifling innovation and reducing the Air Force's ability to adapt to new technologies or changing operational needs. The absence of small businesses further limits the infusion of fresh perspectives and potentially more cost-effective solutions. This could result in a less agile and potentially more expensive long-term operational posture for airfield management.
Industry Classification
NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services
Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES
Competition & Pricing
Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE
Solicitation ID: FA664306R0001
Offers Received: 5
Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 309 S FRONT ST, MARQUETTE, MI, 49855
Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $30,700,157
Exercised Options: $22,089,151
Current Obligation: $22,033,049
Contract Characteristics
Cost or Pricing Data: NO
Timeline
Start Date: 2007-08-01
Current End Date: 2014-07-31
Potential End Date: 2014-07-31 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2016-03-10
More Contracts from Satellite Services Inc
- Base Operational Services AT March ARB CA — $69.2M (Department of Defense)
- 200507!000032!5700!fa4664!452msg/Lgc !FA466405C0001 !A!N! !N! ! !20050112!20060131!050713650!050713650!050713650!n!satellite Services, Inc !309 South Front ST !marquette !mi!49855!45680!065!06!march AFB !riverside !california!+000000091368!n!n!000025599644!m119!operation/Other Administrative & Service Buildings!s1 !services !000 !* !561210!A!B!3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !a!n!j!2!006!k! !C!Y!Z! ! !n!b!n!n! ! !A! !b!a!000!a!b!n! ! ! ! ! !FA4664!0001! ! — $57.6M (Department of Defense)
- 200409!000041!5700!MA22 !914 Aw/Lgc !FA667004C0003 !A!N! !N! ! !20040504!20050531!050713650!050713650!050713650!n!satellite Services, Inc !309 South Front ST !marquette !mi!49855!51060!063!36!niagara Falls Intern!niagara !NEW York !+000004388609!n!n!000004388609!s216!facilities Operations Support Services !S1 !services !000 !* !561210!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!j!2!005!k! !C!N!Z! ! !n!b!n!n! ! !Z! !B!A!00 !A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! ! — $48.9M (Department of Defense)
- Federal Contract — $34.8M (Department of Labor)
- Federal Contract — $23.5M (Department of Labor)
Other Department of Defense Contracts
- Federal Contract — $51.3B (Humana Government Business Inc)
- Lrip LOT 12 Advance Acquisition Contract — $35.1B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- SSN 802 and 803 Long Lead Time Material — $34.7B (Electric Boat Corporation)
- 200204!008532!1700!AF600 !naval AIR Systems Command !N0001902C3002 !A!N! !N! !20011026!20120430!008016958!008016958!834951691!n!lockheed Martin Corporation !lockheed Blvd !fort Worth !tx!76108!27000!439!48!fort Worth !tarrant !texas !+000026000000!n!n!018981928201!ac15!rdte/Aircraft-Eng/Manuf Develop !a1a!airframes and Spares !2ama!jast/Jsf !336411!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !a!n!r!2!002!n!1a!a!n!z! ! !N!C!N! ! ! !a!a!a!a!000!a!c!n! ! ! !Y! !N00019!0001! — $34.2B (Lockheed Martin Corporation)
- KC-X Modernization Program — $32.0B (THE Boeing Company)