DHS awards $41.4M for security services, raising questions about value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $41,391,196 ($41.4M)

Contractor: Corecivic, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2015-03-26

End Date: 2016-04-30

Contract Duration: 401 days

Daily Burn Rate: $103.2K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CL::IGF NEW TASK ORDER NEEDED FOR CCA. G-514-FUNDING FOR CCA- CLIN 7001, 7003 FUNDING FOR APRIL 1-30, 2015

Place of Performance

Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77032

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $41.4 million to CORECIVIC, INC. for work described as: IGF::CL::IGF NEW TASK ORDER NEEDED FOR CCA. G-514-FUNDING FOR CCA- CLIN 7001, 7003 FUNDING FOR APRIL 1-30, 2015 Key points: 1. Contract value appears high relative to duration, suggesting potential overspending. 2. Limited competition may have inflated pricing and reduced taxpayer value. 3. Security guard services are a common need, but this contract's specifics warrant scrutiny. 4. Performance context is minimal, making it difficult to assess effectiveness. 5. This contract falls within the broader security and facilities management sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's total value of $41.4 million over approximately 13 months suggests a monthly cost of over $3 million. Benchmarking against similar security guard contracts is difficult without more specific service details, but this rate appears elevated. The firm-fixed-price structure offers some cost certainty, but the overall value proposition is unclear without performance metrics or comparisons to other government or commercial security contracts of similar scope and duration.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, which theoretically should lead to competitive pricing. However, the number of bidders is not specified, and the duration and specific requirements of the task order could have limited the pool of qualified offerors. Without knowing how many bids were received and the nature of the competition, it's hard to definitively assess its impact on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: While full and open competition is generally positive for taxpayers, the lack of detail on the number of bidders prevents a conclusive assessment of whether taxpayers received the best possible price.

Public Impact

Benefits U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by providing essential security services. Ensures the safety and security of federal facilities and personnel. Services are geographically concentrated in Texas. Supports jobs in the security guard industry within the specified region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost overruns given the high monthly expenditure.
Lack of performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Unclear if the competition truly drove down costs effectively.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, indicating an attempt at market-based pricing.
Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Services address a critical government function: facility security.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the security and patrol services industry, a segment of the broader facilities management and government contracting sector. The market for security services is competitive, with numerous providers ranging from large corporations to smaller specialized firms. Government spending on security guards is substantial, driven by the need to protect federal assets and personnel across various agencies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically focus on per-guard hourly rates or monthly contract values for similar service levels.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it specify any subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that larger, established companies were likely the primary participants in the competition. The absence of small business involvement could limit opportunities for smaller firms in this specific contract, though they may compete on other, smaller procurements.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight would typically be managed by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracting officer and program managers. Transparency is limited by the available data, which does not detail performance reviews or specific oversight mechanisms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Protective Service Contracts
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Security Services
Department of Homeland Security Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Potential for high cost relative to duration.
Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of competition.
Lack of detailed performance metrics.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $41.4 million to CORECIVIC, INC.. IGF::CL::IGF NEW TASK ORDER NEEDED FOR CCA. G-514-FUNDING FOR CCA- CLIN 7001, 7003 FUNDING FOR APRIL 1-30, 2015

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 $41.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-03-26. End: 2016-04-30.

What is the typical cost per hour for security guards in Texas for similar government contracts?

Determining a precise benchmark for security guard costs in Texas requires detailed service level agreements, including guard qualifications (e.g., armed vs. unarmed, supervisory roles), hours of operation, and specific security protocols. However, general market data suggests that hourly rates for unarmed security guards in Texas can range from $20 to $40, while armed guards might command $30 to $55 or more, depending on the region and specific duties. Given the contract's total value of $41.4 million over approximately 13 months (401 days), this implies an average daily cost of roughly $103,220. If we assume 24/7 coverage by multiple guards, the implied hourly rate could be significantly higher than standard commercial rates, warranting further investigation into the scope and necessity of the services provided.

How many bids were received for this full and open competition?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' which signifies that all responsible sources were permitted to submit an offer. However, the specific number of bids received is not detailed in the available information. A robust competition typically involves multiple bidders, ideally three or more, to ensure competitive pricing and a wide range of solutions. Without this number, it is difficult to assess the true level of competition and its potential impact on the final price paid by the government. If only one or two bids were received, the government may not have achieved the most advantageous pricing.

What specific security services were provided under this contract?

The contract's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 561612, which corresponds to 'Security Guards and Patrol Services.' This generally includes providing on-site security personnel to protect clients' property and maintain order. However, the specific tasks, post orders, equipment requirements, and the number of guards deployed are not detailed in the provided data. Understanding these specifics is crucial for evaluating the contract's value, necessity, and cost-effectiveness. For instance, requirements for armed guards, specialized surveillance, or emergency response capabilities would significantly influence the contract's scope and price compared to basic unarmed guard services.

What is the track record of CoreCivic, Inc. in providing similar security services to the government?

CoreCivic, Inc. is a well-known private operator of prisons and detention facilities, primarily serving federal, state, and local government agencies. While their core business involves facility management and inmate services, they also engage in related security operations. Their track record in providing security guard services specifically, as distinct from overall facility operation, would need to be assessed based on past performance evaluations and contract history. Government agencies typically maintain performance records for contractors, which would inform future awards and provide insight into their reliability, quality of service, and adherence to contract terms. A review of past performance data would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment.

How does this contract's duration and value compare to other ICE security contracts?

This contract has a duration of approximately 13 months (March 26, 2015, to April 30, 2016) with a total value of $41.4 million. This translates to a monthly expenditure of roughly $3.18 million. Comparing this to other ICE security contracts requires access to a broader dataset of ICE procurements. However, a monthly spend of over $3 million on security guards suggests a significant operational requirement, potentially involving a large number of personnel or highly specialized security measures. Without comparative data on the number of guards, hours, and specific services rendered in other ICE contracts, it's challenging to definitively state if this represents a higher or lower value proposition. Further analysis of ICE's security spending patterns would be needed.

Are there any known risks associated with this type of security service contract?

Risks associated with security guard contracts often include issues related to personnel quality (e.g., inadequate training, background checks, reliability), potential for misconduct, and the effectiveness of guards in deterring or responding to incidents. For government contracts, there's also the risk of cost overruns if the scope of work is not clearly defined or if unforeseen security needs arise. Ensuring adequate supervision and performance monitoring is critical. Furthermore, reliance on a single contractor for critical security functions can pose a risk if the contractor fails to perform or faces financial instability. The firm-fixed-price nature mitigates some cost risk but places the burden of performance on the contractor.

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

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: $41,391,196

Exercised Options: $41,391,196

Current Obligation: $41,391,196

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSCEDM09D00007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline