DHS's $16M facility support contract with Action Facilities Management Inc. ran for 10 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,084,521 ($16.1M)

Contractor: Action Facilities Management Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2006-09-30

End Date: 2016-09-28

Contract Duration: 3,651 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: HARPERS FERRY, JEFFERSON County, WEST VIRGINIA, 25425

State: West Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $16.1 million to ACTION FACILITIES MANAGEMENT INC for work described as: FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract's long duration suggests a sustained need for facility support services. 2. The use of Time and Materials pricing may lead to cost overruns if not carefully managed. 3. The lack of competition raises questions about potential price inefficiencies. 4. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, indicating limited market engagement. 5. The geographic location in West Virginia may influence local economic impact. 6. The absence of a small business set-aside suggests larger firms were likely involved.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

This contract's value is difficult to benchmark without comparable data for similar facility support services over a 10-year period. The Time and Materials pricing structure, while flexible, can be prone to cost escalation if not rigorously monitored. The lack of competitive bidding means there's no clear market price to compare against, making it challenging to definitively assess value for money. The total award amount of $16,008,452.12 over a decade suggests an average annual spend of approximately $1.6 million, which needs to be evaluated against the scope and quality of services provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required services, often due to unique capabilities, existing infrastructure, or specific security requirements. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to secure the best possible pricing and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: A sole-source award means taxpayers did not benefit from the potential cost savings that could arise from a competitive bidding process, where multiple vendors vie for the contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the facilities managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection within West Virginia. The services delivered include essential facility support, ensuring operational readiness. The geographic impact is concentrated in West Virginia, potentially supporting local jobs and businesses through the contractor. Workforce implications could include direct employment by Action Facilities Management Inc. and potential indirect employment in supporting industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have led to higher costs for taxpayers.
Time and Materials pricing can incentivize longer project durations and increased labor hours.
The 10-year duration of the contract might indicate a lack of regular re-evaluation of service needs or market alternatives.
The absence of specific performance metrics or award details makes it hard to gauge service quality.
The contract's classification as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' warrants further investigation into the justification.

Positive Signals

The contract provided consistent facility support services over a significant period, ensuring operational continuity.
The long-term relationship may have fostered expertise and efficiency in serving the specific needs of the agency.
The award to a single entity could indicate a successful, long-standing performance history with the agency.

Sector Analysis

Facility support services fall under the broader commercial and professional services sector. This contract, valued at over $16 million across its 10-year lifespan, represents a significant but not exceptionally large expenditure within this sector. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561210 for Facilities Support Services covers a wide range of activities, including building operation and maintenance, security, and other support services. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other government contracts for similar services, considering factors like contract duration, scope of work, and geographic location.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false) and there is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans (sb: false). This suggests that the prime contractor, Action Facilities Management Inc., is likely a larger entity, and the contract did not specifically aim to promote small business participation. Consequently, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem from this particular contract is likely minimal, unless the prime contractor voluntarily engaged small businesses as subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically be managed by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be tied to the terms and conditions of the Time and Materials contract, including labor rates, hours, and material costs. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature of the award and the lack of publicly available detailed performance reports. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Buildings Fund
Department of Defense Facility Maintenance Contracts
Other Agency Facility Support Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification
Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing
Lack of competition over a 10-year period
Absence of small business subcontracting information

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $16.1 million to ACTION FACILITIES MANAGEMENT INC. FACILITY SUPPORT SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ACTION FACILITIES MANAGEMENT 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 $16.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-30. End: 2016-09-28.

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

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is synonymous with a sole-source award. However, the specific justification for this determination is not detailed in the provided data. Typically, sole-source justifications are based on factors such as the uniqueness of the service or technology, the contractor's proprietary knowledge, or the lack of adequate competition. Without further documentation from the awarding agency (Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection), the precise reasons remain unknown. This lack of transparency can be a concern for ensuring fair and efficient use of taxpayer funds, as it bypasses the standard competitive procurement process designed to foster price discovery and ensure best value.

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) pricing structure compare to other contract types for facility support services?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not clearly defined or is expected to change significantly. They reimburse the contractor for direct labor hours at specified hourly rates and for the actual cost of materials. While offering flexibility, T&M contracts carry a higher risk of cost overruns for the government compared to fixed-price contracts, as the final cost is not predetermined. For facility support services, fixed-price or cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts are often preferred when requirements are well-defined, as they provide greater cost certainty. The use of T&M here suggests either a highly variable service requirement or potentially less stringent cost controls by the agency.

What is the typical duration for facility support contracts of this nature?

Facility support contracts can vary widely in duration depending on the scope of services, the agency's needs, and procurement strategies. Contracts can range from short-term, project-specific engagements to long-term, comprehensive support agreements. A 10-year duration, as seen in this case (from 2006 to 2016), is relatively long for a single definitive contract, especially if it includes options for renewal. Longer durations can provide stability and predictability for both the agency and the contractor, potentially leading to efficiencies. However, they also reduce opportunities for re-competition, which could lead to missed savings or the adoption of outdated service models if not managed proactively.

What are the potential risks associated with a 10-year sole-source contract for facility support?

A 10-year sole-source contract for facility support presents several potential risks. Firstly, the lack of competition over such an extended period can lead to complacency and reduced incentives for the contractor to innovate or offer cost efficiencies, potentially resulting in higher-than-market prices. Secondly, the government may be locked into a service model that becomes outdated or less effective over time, without the opportunity to benefit from new technologies or approaches that might emerge in the market. Thirdly, without regular competitive re-evaluation, there's an increased risk of vendor lock-in and a diminished ability to adapt to changing agency needs or budget constraints. Finally, the absence of competition makes it harder to independently verify the 'best value' proposition throughout the contract's life.

How does the geographic location (West Virginia) potentially influence this contract?

The geographic location of West Virginia for this facility support contract could influence several aspects. It may affect the availability and cost of labor, as regional wage rates differ. Local economic impact is also a factor; the contract likely provided employment opportunities within West Virginia, either directly by Action Facilities Management Inc. or indirectly through local suppliers and subcontractors. Furthermore, the specific needs of the facilities being supported in West Virginia (e.g., climate, infrastructure, security requirements) would dictate the precise nature of the facility support services required. The concentration of spending in one state can also be relevant for regional economic development considerations.

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: HSBP1106R0856

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 115 MALONE DR, MORGANTOWN, WV, 26501

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $16,084,521

Exercised Options: $16,084,521

Current Obligation: $16,084,521

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline