DHS's $34.3M Contract for CCA Security Services Awarded via Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,291,251 ($34.3M)

Contractor: Corecivic, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2009-04-01

End Date: 2010-08-10

Contract Duration: 496 days

Daily Burn Rate: $69.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: G-514-FUNDING FOR CORRECTIONS COPORATIONS OF AMERICA (CCA) STARTING APRIL 1, 2009

Place of Performance

Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77032

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $34.3 million to CORECIVIC, INC. for work described as: G-514-FUNDING FOR CORRECTIONS COPORATIONS OF AMERICA (CCA) STARTING APRIL 1, 2009 Key points: 1. The contract awarded to CoreCivic, Inc. (formerly CCA) for security services represents a significant expenditure for DHS. 2. Competition was open, suggesting a potentially competitive bidding process for these services. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the total value warrants scrutiny. 4. This spending falls within the security and facilities management sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $34.3 million over approximately 1.5 years for security services appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar government contracts for security guards and patrol services would be necessary to determine if this pricing is competitive.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid. This method generally promotes price discovery and can lead to more favorable pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The use of full and open competition suggests efforts to secure value for taxpayer dollars, though the final price achieved is the key metric for taxpayer impact.

Public Impact

Taxpayers funded security services for correctional facilities, impacting the management of detainees. The contract duration of over a year suggests ongoing operational needs for these services. The award to a large private prison corporation raises questions about the role and cost-effectiveness of private sector involvement in corrections.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific per-unit cost data makes comprehensive value assessment difficult.
Potential for cost overruns if scope changes or unforeseen issues arise, despite fixed-price.
Reliance on a single large contractor for critical security functions.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, maximizing potential vendor participation.
Firm-fixed-price contract structure provides cost certainty.
Clear contract start and end dates define the period of performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under security and protective services, a sector often characterized by significant government spending to ensure public safety and facility security. Benchmarks for similar services can vary widely based on location, security levels, and specific requirements.

Small Business Impact

The data does not indicate whether small businesses were involved as subcontractors or prime contractors. Further analysis would be needed to determine the extent of small business participation in this contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would involve monitoring contract performance, ensuring compliance with security standards, and verifying billing accuracy. The Department of Homeland Security, specifically U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is responsible for this oversight.

Related Government Programs

Security Guards and Patrol Services
Department of Homeland Security Contracting
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Programs

Risk Flags

Significant contract value requires thorough justification and performance monitoring.
Potential for contractor performance issues impacting critical security functions.
Lack of detailed cost breakdown hinders granular value analysis.
Reliance on a single large provider for essential services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $34.3 million to CORECIVIC, INC.. G-514-FUNDING FOR CORRECTIONS COPORATIONS OF AMERICA (CCA) STARTING APRIL 1, 2009

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CORECIVIC, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $34.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-04-01. End: 2010-08-10.

What was the specific scope of services provided under this contract, and how did it compare to industry standards for security guards and patrol services?

The provided data identifies the service as 'Security Guards and Patrol Services' (NAICS 561612). However, the specific details of the scope, such as the number of guards, hours of operation, specific security protocols, and geographic locations covered, are not detailed. A comprehensive comparison to industry standards would require this granular information to assess if the $34.3 million price was justified for the services rendered.

Given the firm-fixed-price structure, what mechanisms were in place to manage potential risks associated with service quality and contractor performance?

While a firm-fixed-price contract aims to cap costs, effective oversight is crucial for managing performance risks. This would typically involve performance metrics, regular inspections, and clear procedures for addressing deficiencies. The contract's success in mitigating risks would depend on the diligence of ICE in monitoring CCA's adherence to security standards and operational requirements throughout the contract period.

How did the competitive bidding process for this contract ensure the most effective and efficient security solutions were selected for the government?

The 'full and open competition' designation suggests that multiple qualified vendors were invited to submit proposals, fostering a competitive environment. The effectiveness and efficiency of the selected solution would hinge on the evaluation criteria used by ICE, the quality of proposals received, and the final negotiated price. A robust evaluation process is key to ensuring the chosen bid represented the best overall value.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Investigation and Security Services › Security Guards and Patrol Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10 BURTON HILLS BLVD, NASHVILLE, TN, 37215

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,291,251

Exercised Options: $34,291,251

Current Obligation: $34,291,251

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSCEDM09D00007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline