Homeland Security's $23.2M contract for security services awarded to Trailboss Enterprises, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $23,239,503 ($23.2M)

Contractor: Trailboss Enterprises, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2013-06-01

End Date: 2014-05-31

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $63.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF FUNDING FOR SAN ANTONIO FIELD OFFICE TRAILBOSS TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT, HSCEDM-12-D-00005. TASK ORDER NUMBER HSCEDM-13-00024 FOR THE PERIOD 1 JUN 2013 THROUGH 31 MAY 2014

Place of Performance

Location: PEARSALL, FRIO County, TEXAS, 78061

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $23.2 million to TRAILBOSS ENTERPRISES, INC. for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF FUNDING FOR SAN ANTONIO FIELD OFFICE TRAILBOSS TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT, HSCEDM-12-D-00005. TASK ORDER NUMBER HSCEDM-13-00024 FOR THE PERIOD 1 JUN 2013 THROUGH 31 MAY 2014 Key points: 1. The contract was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating a broad search for qualified vendors. 2. The duration of the contract was one year, suggesting a need for ongoing but not long-term security services. 3. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which shifts cost risk to the contractor. 4. The awarded amount of $23.2 million for a one-year period warrants scrutiny for value for money. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 points to security guard and patrol services. 6. The contract was awarded by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of DHS.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $23.2 million for a single year of security services appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar contracts for security guard and patrol services is crucial to determine if this represents a fair price. Without specific details on the scope of services, personnel hours, and geographic coverage, a definitive value assessment is challenging. However, the significant dollar amount suggests a need for thorough cost analysis and comparison with industry standards for comparable security operations.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' which implies that while the competition was open, certain sources were initially excluded, possibly due to specific requirements or prior performance issues. The presence of 6 bidders suggests a competitive environment, which should theoretically lead to better pricing. However, the 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation into the reasons for exclusion and its potential impact on the breadth of competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging multiple vendors to bid, driving down prices. The exclusion of sources, however, could limit this benefit if it unnecessarily restricts the pool of potential bidders.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel and facilities, who receive security services. The services delivered include security guard and patrol functions, crucial for maintaining order and safety. The contract is geographically focused on Texas (TX), indicating a specific regional need for these security services. The contract likely supports a workforce of security guards employed by Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., contributing to local employment in Texas.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type needs clarification to ensure it did not unduly limit competition and potentially increase costs.
The substantial contract value requires detailed justification to ensure it represents good value for money compared to market rates for similar security services.
The specific nature of the security services provided and the exact number of personnel deployed are not detailed, making performance assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

The award was made through a full and open competition, suggesting a structured and transparent procurement process.
The contract is Firm Fixed Price, which provides cost certainty and transfers risk to the contractor.
The existence of 6 bidders indicates a healthy level of interest and potential competition for this type of service.

Sector Analysis

The security services industry is a significant sector within the broader services market, encompassing a wide range of protective functions. NAICS code 561612 specifically covers establishments primarily engaged in providing security guards and patrol services. This contract falls within a segment of the federal contracting market that frequently utilizes private security firms to supplement government personnel for facility protection and operational security. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other federal contracts for similar security guard services across different agencies and geographic locations.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a primary focus for this contract, as the 'small business' flag is false. There is no explicit mention of small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. This suggests that the contract was likely awarded to a larger entity capable of meeting the extensive service demands, and opportunities for small businesses may be limited to potential subcontracting roles if they exist and are utilized by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the purview of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures would be defined in the contract's performance work statement, with potential for penalties or remedies for non-performance. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance metrics and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

DHS Security Contracts
ICE Facility Support Services
Federal Security Guard Services
Texas Regional Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
Substantial contract value requires thorough value-for-money assessment.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in provided data hinders oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $23.2 million to TRAILBOSS ENTERPRISES, INC.. IGF::OT::IGF FUNDING FOR SAN ANTONIO FIELD OFFICE TRAILBOSS TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT, HSCEDM-12-D-00005. TASK ORDER NUMBER HSCEDM-13-00024 FOR THE PERIOD 1 JUN 2013 THROUGH 31 MAY 2014

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TRAILBOSS ENTERPRISES, 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 $23.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-06-01. End: 2014-05-31.

What specific security services were provided under this contract, and what was the justification for the $23.2 million cost?

The contract, identified by Task Order Number HSCEDM-13-00024, was for security guard and patrol services (NAICS 561612) for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office in San Antonio, Texas. The total value for the one-year period (June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2014) was $23,239,502.85. Justification for the cost would typically stem from the scope of work, including the number of security personnel required, their posts, hours of operation, required qualifications and training, and any specialized equipment or technology deployed. A firm fixed-price contract structure indicates that the contractor, Trailboss Enterprises, Inc., assumed the risk for cost overruns. Without the detailed Performance Work Statement (PWS), a precise cost breakdown is not available, but the amount suggests a significant security presence, potentially covering multiple facilities or high-security requirements within the San Antonio area.

How did the 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' process impact the competitiveness and final price?

The procurement method 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' is somewhat unusual. Typically, 'full and open competition' means all responsible sources are permitted to submit offers. The addition of 'after exclusion of sources' implies that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain potential bidders were disqualified or not considered from the outset. The reasons for such exclusions can vary, including past performance issues, inability to meet specific technical requirements, or pre-existing contractual relationships. With 6 bidders participating, the competition was not entirely stifled, but the exclusion clause warrants scrutiny. If the excluded sources were capable and would have offered competitive pricing, their exclusion could have led to a higher final price than might have been achieved in a truly unrestricted competition. Conversely, if the exclusions were based on valid performance or capability concerns, it could have ensured a higher quality award.

What is the track record of Trailboss Enterprises, Inc. in providing federal security services?

Trailboss Enterprises, Inc. was the prime contractor for this $23.2 million ICE security services contract. Information regarding their broader track record in providing federal security services would require a more extensive search beyond the provided data. Key indicators of their track record would include their history with other federal agencies, the types and scale of contracts they have previously held, their performance ratings on past contracts (e.g., CPARS reports), and any history of contract disputes or terminations. Without this additional context, it's difficult to assess their overall reliability and experience specifically within the federal contracting landscape beyond this single award.

How does the per-unit cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for security guard services?

The provided data does not include sufficient detail to calculate a meaningful per-unit cost for comparison. Key metrics such as the number of security personnel, total hours worked, or the specific services rendered per dollar are missing. To benchmark, one would need to know the average hourly rate paid to guards, the number of guards employed, and the total hours they worked over the contract period. For example, if the $23.2 million covered 100 guards working 24/7 for a year (approximately 1.2 million man-hours), the blended hourly rate would be around $19.37. This figure would then need to be compared against prevailing wage rates, industry averages for similar security roles (considering experience, certifications, and location), and rates paid under other federal contracts for comparable services. Without these granular details, a per-unit cost comparison is speculative.

What are the potential risks associated with a contract of this size and duration for security services?

A contract of this magnitude ($23.2 million for one year) for security services carries several potential risks. Firstly, there's the risk of cost overruns if the firm fixed-price structure doesn't adequately account for unforeseen operational costs, although this risk is primarily borne by the contractor. More significant for the government are risks related to performance: inadequate staffing levels, poorly trained personnel, failure to maintain required security protocols, or breaches of security. Given the 'exclusion of sources' in the procurement, there's also a risk that the competition was not as robust as it could have been, potentially impacting the value received. Furthermore, reliance on a single contractor for critical security functions introduces vendor lock-in risk and potential disruption if the contractor fails to perform or faces financial instability.

What is the historical spending pattern for security services by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for security services requires access to historical contract data beyond this single task order. This specific task order represents $23.2 million in spending for the period of June 1, 2013, to May 31, 2014. To understand historical trends, one would need to examine ICE's spending on NAICS code 561612 (Security Guards and Patrol Services) and potentially related codes over several fiscal years. This would involve looking at the total annual expenditure, the number and value of contracts awarded, the primary contractors utilized, and whether spending has increased, decreased, or remained stable. Such an analysis would reveal if this $23.2 million award is typical, an outlier, or part of a growing/shrinking trend in ICE's security service procurement.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 201 EAST 3RD AVE, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99501

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $23,239,503

Exercised Options: $23,239,503

Current Obligation: $23,239,503

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSCEDM12D00005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline