DoD awards $2.4M contract for shelf stocking and custodial services to CW Resources, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,415,819 ($2.4M)

Contractor: CW Resources, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2021-11-01

End Date: 2026-10-31

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SHELF STOCKING, RECEIVING/STORAGE/HOLDING AREA (RSHA), AND CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS

Place of Performance

Location: CORPUS CHRISTI, NUECES County, TEXAS, 78419

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $2.4 million to CW RESOURCES, INC. for work described as: SHELF STOCKING, RECEIVING/STORAGE/HOLDING AREA (RSHA), AND CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS Key points: 1. Contract value appears reasonable for the scope of services, though specific benchmarks are unavailable. 2. Sole-source award limits price discovery and potential for competitive savings. 3. Contract duration of five years presents a long-term commitment. 4. Performance context is limited due to lack of publicly available details on service delivery. 5. Sector positioning is within essential support services for military commissaries. 6. Risk indicators are moderate, primarily related to sole-source nature and long duration.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $2.4 million over five years averages to approximately $483,000 annually. Without specific details on the scale of operations (e.g., number of commissaries, square footage, staffing levels), it is difficult to benchmark this against similar contracts. However, the annual cost seems within a plausible range for comprehensive support services in a large retail or logistics environment. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government.

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 responsible source is available or authorized by statute. The lack of competition means the government did not explore potential savings that could arise from multiple bidders vying for the contract, potentially leading to a higher price than if it had been competed.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible value due to the absence of competitive bidding, which usually drives down costs.

Public Impact

Military personnel and their families benefit from well-stocked commissaries and clean facilities. Services include shelf stocking, receiving, storage, holding area operations, and custodial duties. Geographic impact is primarily within Texas, where the contractor is based. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for individuals in support service roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pressure on pricing.
Long contract duration may reduce flexibility for future cost-saving opportunities.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it hard to assess value for money.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides budget certainty.
CW Resources, Inc. likely has a track record supporting similar government contracts.
Services are essential for commissary operations, ensuring readiness and morale.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader 'Other Support Services' industry, specifically focusing on facility support and logistics. The market for these services is substantial, encompassing a wide range of government and commercial entities requiring outsourced operational support. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more granular data on the specific services and locations covered. However, the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) relies on such contracts to maintain efficient operations across its network.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that small business set-aside was not utilized (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests the contract was not specifically targeted to small businesses. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless CW Resources, Inc. voluntarily engages small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight of this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the Defense Commissary Agency's program officials. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the lack of publicly detailed performance reports. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Commissary Agency Operations
Logistics and Warehousing Services
Facility Maintenance and Support Contracts
Government Support Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award limits competition
Long contract duration
Limited public performance data

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $2.4 million to CW RESOURCES, INC.. SHELF STOCKING, RECEIVING/STORAGE/HOLDING AREA (RSHA), AND CUSTODIAL OPERATIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CW RESOURCES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2021-11-01. End: 2026-10-31.

What is the track record of CW Resources, Inc. in performing similar government contracts?

While specific details on CW Resources, Inc.'s past performance for this exact scope are not provided in the data, the company has a history of holding government contracts, particularly those involving services for individuals with disabilities, as they often employ such individuals. A deeper dive into contract databases like SAM.gov or FPDS would be necessary to ascertain their performance history on shelf stocking, receiving/storage, and custodial operations for agencies like the Defense Commissary Agency. Reviewing past performance evaluations and any contract awards or terminations would provide a clearer picture of their reliability and capability in fulfilling similar requirements.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar services?

Benchmarking the annual cost of approximately $483,000 for shelf stocking, receiving/storage, and custodial operations is challenging without more specific data. Key factors influencing cost include the number of facilities serviced, the square footage of those facilities, the volume of goods handled, and the specific service levels required (e.g., frequency of cleaning, stocking intensity). Industry benchmarks for custodial services can range widely, from $0.50 to $2.00+ per square foot annually, depending on the type of facility and services. Logistics and stocking costs are highly variable based on throughput. Given the sole-source nature, a direct comparison to competitively bid contracts is not feasible, but the cost appears plausible for comprehensive support across potentially multiple commissary locations.

What are the primary risks associated with this sole-source contract?

The primary risk associated with this sole-source contract is the potential for suboptimal pricing. Without competition, there is less incentive for the contractor to offer the lowest possible price, and the government lacks the benefit of comparing multiple proposals. Another risk is the long duration (five years), which could lead to contractor complacency or make it difficult to adapt to changing operational needs or technological advancements without costly modifications. Furthermore, the lack of publicly available performance metrics makes it challenging to proactively identify and mitigate performance risks, relying heavily on the government's internal oversight.

How effective is the Defense Commissary Agency in overseeing contracts of this nature?

The effectiveness of the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) in overseeing contracts like this one depends on several factors, including the adequacy of their internal resources, the clarity of the contract's performance work statement (PWS), and the diligence of their contracting officer representatives (CORs). DeCA generally has established procedures for contract management. However, the sole-source nature of this award and the limited public data on performance metrics suggest that oversight effectiveness might be harder to gauge externally. Robust oversight would involve regular performance reviews, site visits, and prompt attention to any issues raised by commissary staff or the contractor.

What are the historical spending patterns for shelf stocking and custodial services by the Defense Commissary Agency?

Historical spending patterns for shelf stocking and custodial services by the Defense Commissary Agency (DeCA) are not detailed in the provided data. To analyze this, one would need to examine DeCA's procurement history over several years, looking for contracts with similar scopes of work (e.g., logistics support, facility maintenance, custodial services) and comparing their values, durations, and award types. Understanding whether DeCA typically uses sole-source or competitive solicitations for these services, and how spending has trended, would provide valuable context for evaluating the current contract's value and strategic approach.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is a common designation for sole-source procurements. The specific justification for this sole-source award is not detailed in the snippet. Typically, sole-source awards are justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required services, there is a critical need for the services and urgency precludes competition, or the acquisition is for a brand-name item for which only one source can provide it. Without the official justification document, the precise reason remains unknown.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Other Support Services › All Other Support Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 200 MYRTLE ST, NEW BRITAIN, CT, 06053

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,026,475

Exercised Options: $3,026,475

Current Obligation: $2,415,819

Actual Outlays: $1,037,168

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline