DHS's $33.8M background investigations contract with Peraton Risk Decision Inc. awarded in 2003, ending in 2009

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,765,854 ($33.8M)

Contractor: Peraton Risk Decision Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2003-10-01

End Date: 2009-03-31

Contract Duration: 2,008 days

Daily Burn Rate: $16.8K/day

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

Place of Performance

Location: RESTON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20190

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $33.8 million to PERATON RISK DECISION INC. for work described as: BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS Key points: 1. The contract's value of $33.8 million over its period of performance suggests a moderate investment in background investigation services. 2. The award to Peraton Risk Decision Inc. indicates a specific choice for this contractor, warranting an examination of their qualifications and past performance. 3. The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' contract type implies that contractor performance directly influenced the final payment, incentivizing efficiency and quality. 4. The contract duration of approximately 5.5 years allowed for a sustained period of service delivery and potential for performance evaluation. 5. The 'VA' (Virginia) state designation for the contract suggests a concentration of activity or administrative oversight within that region. 6. The absence of specific details on competition level necessitates an inquiry into how this contract was procured and the number of bidders involved.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract requires more granular data on the scope of background investigations performed. However, $33.8 million over nearly six years for a federal agency like DHS suggests a potentially reasonable cost per investigation, assuming a significant volume. Without comparable contract data or specific per-investigation costs, a definitive value-for-money assessment is challenging. The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' structure, if well-managed, can drive good performance, but also carries the risk of cost overruns if award fee criteria are not strictly applied.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The provided data does not specify the competition level for this contract. It is crucial to understand whether this was a full and open competition, a limited competition, or a sole-source award. The level of competition directly impacts price discovery and the potential for achieving the best value for the government. A limited or sole-source award might indicate unique capabilities required or potential market limitations, but could also suggest missed opportunities for cost savings through broader competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The level of competition directly affects taxpayer value. Robust competition typically leads to lower prices and better service offerings. If this contract was not widely competed, taxpayers may have paid a premium or received less optimal services than could have been achieved through a more open process.

Public Impact

This contract directly supported the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The primary service delivered was background investigations, crucial for vetting personnel and ensuring national security. The geographic impact is likely concentrated in areas where CBP operates and where personnel requiring investigations are located, with administrative functions potentially centered in Virginia. Workforce implications include the employment of investigators and administrative staff by the contractor, Peraton Risk Decision Inc., and the impact on the federal employees being investigated.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the competition method used for this contract.
The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' structure requires diligent oversight to ensure cost control and prevent potential overspending.
Without detailed performance metrics, it's difficult to assess the effectiveness and quality of the background investigations conducted.

Positive Signals

The contract duration of nearly six years suggests a stable and potentially effective working relationship.
The award to a specific contractor implies they met the necessary qualifications and requirements for providing background investigation services.
The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' structure, when managed effectively, can incentivize high-quality performance and efficiency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically focusing on security and investigative services. The market for background investigations is significant, driven by government requirements for personnel security and national security clearances. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other federal contracts for similar investigation services across various agencies, considering factors like volume, complexity, and turnaround times. The size of this contract ($33.8M) positions it as a moderately sized award within this specialized service area.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate whether this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. Analysis of small business participation would require further investigation into the contract's specific clauses and the contractor's subcontracting plan. Without this information, it's impossible to assess the impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) within DHS. Accountability measures would be tied to the 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' structure, where performance against defined criteria dictates a portion of the payment. Transparency is assessed by the availability of contract details, including competition methods and performance outcomes. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Federal Employee Background Investigations
Personnel Security Investigations
Department of Homeland Security Contracts
Customs and Border Protection Services
Government Contracting Services

Risk Flags

Competition level not specified
Performance metrics not detailed
Potential for cost overruns with CPAF structure if not managed properly

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $33.8 million to PERATON RISK DECISION INC.. BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PERATON RISK DECISION INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Customs and Border Protection).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $33.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-10-01. End: 2009-03-31.

What was the specific scope and volume of background investigations conducted under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope or volume of background investigations. This information is critical for a comprehensive analysis of the contract's value and effectiveness. Understanding the number of investigations, the types (e.g., suitability, security clearances), and the complexity of each case would allow for a more accurate assessment of the per-unit cost and the overall value delivered by Peraton Risk Decision Inc. to U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Without these details, comparisons to industry benchmarks or other government contracts remain speculative.

How did Peraton Risk Decision Inc.'s performance compare to expectations under the 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' structure?

The 'COST PLUS AWARD FEE' (CPAF) contract type means that the contractor's final payment is contingent upon meeting specific performance objectives. To assess Peraton Risk Decision Inc.'s performance, one would need access to the award fee determinations made throughout the contract's life. These determinations would outline the criteria used (e.g., timeliness, accuracy, completeness of investigations) and the scores or ratings received. A review of these records would reveal whether the contractor consistently met or exceeded expectations, thereby earning the full award fee, or if performance fell short, resulting in reduced fees. This directly impacts the final cost to the government and indicates the contractor's effectiveness in delivering the required background investigation services.

What was the competitive landscape for this background investigation contract?

The provided data does not specify the procurement method used for this contract, leaving the competitive landscape unknown. Determining whether this was a full and open competition, a limited competition among a few sources, or a sole-source award is essential. A full and open competition generally yields the best prices and services for taxpayers due to market forces. If the contract was awarded through limited or sole-source means, further justification would be needed to understand why broader competition was not pursued. This could involve unique contractor capabilities, urgent needs, or specific socio-economic program requirements. Understanding the competition level is fundamental to assessing the value achieved.

What is the historical spending trend for background investigations by U.S. Customs and Border Protection?

This contract represents a $33.8 million expenditure for background investigations by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) between October 2003 and March 2009. To understand historical spending trends, one would need to examine CBP's contracting data for background investigations both before and after this period. Analyzing the total amount spent annually, the number of contracts awarded, the types of services procured, and the contractors utilized would reveal patterns. This analysis could identify periods of increased or decreased spending, shifts in procurement strategies (e.g., from CPAF to fixed-price), and changes in the average cost per investigation, providing context for the significance of this particular award.

Were there any significant risks or challenges associated with this contract or contractor?

Without specific contract performance reviews, audit reports, or contract close-out documentation, identifying significant risks or challenges associated with this contract is difficult. Potential risks inherent in background investigation contracts include data security breaches, inaccuracies in reporting, delays in investigation timelines, and contractor performance issues. For Peraton Risk Decision Inc., any past performance issues or challenges encountered on previous government contracts could be considered relevant risk indicators. A thorough risk assessment would involve reviewing any formal disputes, contract modifications, or negative performance feedback documented by the contracting officer during the contract's period of performance.

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Veritas Capital Fund II L P (UEI: 160610809)

Address: 1750 FOXTRAIL DR, LOVELAND, CO, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $65,006,259

Exercised Options: $65,006,259

Current Obligation: $33,765,854

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS10F0275M

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline