DHS's $38.7M contract for security services in Arizona awarded to ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $38,763,200 ($38.8M)

Contractor: Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2015-04-30

End Date: 2016-05-15

Contract Duration: 381 days

Daily Burn Rate: $101.7K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF GUARD SERVICES AND TRANSPORATION FOR FLORENCE SPC, AZ

Place of Performance

Location: FLORENCE, PINAL County, ARIZONA, 85132

State: Arizona Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $38.8 million to ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P. for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF GUARD SERVICES AND TRANSPORATION FOR FLORENCE SPC, AZ Key points: 1. The contract's value of $38.7 million over approximately one year represents a significant investment in facility support services. 2. Awarded through full and open competition, this contract suggests a competitive bidding process was utilized. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type indicates that the contractor assumes the risk for cost overruns. 4. The contract was awarded to ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P., a company with a track record in security services. 5. The geographic focus on Florence, Arizona, highlights specific operational needs within that region. 6. The duration of the contract, approximately 381 days, suggests a medium-term operational requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $38.7 million for approximately one year of security and transportation services appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale federal security contracts. Benchmarking against similar contracts for facility support and guard services at federal installations would provide a more precise value-for-money assessment. The firm-fixed-price structure generally promotes cost control by the contractor. Without specific performance metrics or detailed cost breakdowns, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the competitive award process suggests a degree of price discovery.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The specific number of bidders is not provided, but this method generally fosters a competitive environment, which can lead to better pricing and service offerings for the government. The open competition suggests that the agency sought the best value from a wide range of potential providers.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive process that aims to secure services at the most advantageous price point, reducing the risk of overpayment and encouraging efficiency from the winning contractor.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), receiving essential security and transportation services for facilities in Florence, Arizona. The services delivered include guard services and transportation, crucial for maintaining the security and operational integrity of federal facilities. The geographic impact is concentrated in Florence, Arizona, supporting federal operations and potentially local employment in the security sector. The contract supports the workforce employed by ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P., contributing to job creation and economic activity in the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the quality and effectiveness of the security services provided.
The absence of detailed cost breakdowns hinders a granular analysis of cost-efficiency beyond the overall contract value.
Limited information on the number of bidders restricts a full understanding of the competitive landscape and potential price pressures.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process and potential for competitive pricing.
The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor, which can be beneficial for budget predictability.
The contract supports critical federal operations for DHS/ICE, indicating a recognized need for these security services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a broad category encompassing a range of services necessary for the operation and maintenance of government facilities. The security services sub-sector is a significant component of federal spending, driven by the need to protect personnel, assets, and sensitive information. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar guard and transportation services at federal installations would typically range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on the scale and complexity of the facilities and the threat environment.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a small business set-aside. The primary contractor, ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P., is likely a larger entity capable of fulfilling the contract requirements independently. The absence of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for small business participation would depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plans, if any, which are not detailed here.

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 within the Department of Homeland Security. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract means oversight would focus on ensuring the contractor meets the defined service levels and deliverables. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. While specific Inspector General (IG) jurisdiction for this particular contract isn't detailed, the DHS Office of Inspector General would have oversight authority over potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to federal contracts.

Related Government Programs

Federal Protective Service Contracts
Department of Homeland Security Security Services
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Facility Operations
Guard Services Contracts
Transportation Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for contractor performance issues
Adequacy of competition level for price discovery
Ensuring value for money with firm-fixed-price contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $38.8 million to ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P.. IGF::CT::IGF GUARD SERVICES AND TRANSPORATION FOR FLORENCE SPC, AZ

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P..

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 $38.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-04-30. End: 2016-05-15.

What is the track record of ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P. with federal contracts, particularly with DHS/ICE?

ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P. has a history of receiving federal contracts, including those with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its components like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Analyzing their past performance on similar security and transportation contracts would reveal their reliability, adherence to schedules, and quality of service. A review of contract databases and performance evaluations (if publicly available) would indicate if they have a pattern of successful contract completion, any past disputes, or performance issues. Their experience with large-scale federal security operations is a key indicator of their capability to handle this $38.7 million contract effectively.

How does the $38.7 million contract value compare to similar security service contracts awarded by DHS/ICE?

The $38.7 million contract value for approximately one year of security and transportation services is substantial, reflecting the scale of operations at the Florence SPC facility. To benchmark this value, one would compare it to other DHS/ICE contracts for guard services, facility support, and transportation at comparable facilities. Factors such as the number of personnel required, the level of security needed (e.g., armed vs. unarmed guards), the geographic scope, and the specific services included (e.g., 24/7 coverage, specialized transportation) significantly influence contract costs. Without detailed service requirements, a direct comparison is difficult, but this figure suggests a significant operational footprint requiring extensive security measures.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract, and how are they mitigated?

Key risks include potential service disruptions, failure to meet security standards, cost overruns (though mitigated by the firm-fixed-price structure), and contractor performance issues. Mitigation strategies typically involve robust performance monitoring by the government, clear performance standards in the contract, defined penalties for non-compliance, and the contractor's own risk management processes. The firm-fixed-price nature places the financial risk of cost overruns on the contractor. The government's risk is primarily related to the quality and reliability of the security services provided, which is managed through contract oversight and performance evaluations.

How effective are firm-fixed-price contracts in ensuring value for money in security service procurements?

Firm-fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally considered effective in ensuring value for money for well-defined services like security, as they place the cost risk on the contractor. This incentivizes the contractor to manage costs efficiently to maximize profit. For the government, FFP contracts provide budget certainty, as the price is fixed regardless of the contractor's actual costs. However, the value for money is highly dependent on the initial price negotiation and the clarity of the performance requirements. If the scope is poorly defined or the initial price is too high, the government may not receive optimal value, even with an FFP structure. Robust competition prior to award is crucial for establishing a fair FFP.

What is the historical spending trend for similar security and transportation services by DHS/ICE in Arizona?

Analyzing historical spending trends for similar services by DHS/ICE in Arizona would provide context for the $38.7 million award. This involves examining past contracts for guard services, facility support, and transportation within the state, looking at their values, durations, and the contractors involved. Significant year-over-year increases or decreases in spending could indicate shifts in operational needs, security posture, or market pricing. Understanding these trends helps assess whether the current contract represents a typical investment, an escalation, or a reduction in federal security expenditures in the region.

What are the implications of awarding a large contract like this through 'full and open competition' for the small business ecosystem?

Awarding a large contract through 'full and open competition' generally means that small businesses may have fewer direct opportunities to secure the prime contract, as larger companies are often better positioned to compete on scale and resources. However, it does not preclude small business participation entirely. The prime contractor, ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P., may choose to subcontract portions of the work to small businesses, particularly for specialized services or to meet any broader socioeconomic goals set by the agency. The government's overall strategy for engaging small businesses across its portfolio, including potential set-asides in other procurements, is crucial for their ecosystem development.

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: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5502 BURNHAM DR, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX, 78413

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $38,763,200

Exercised Options: $38,763,200

Current Obligation: $38,763,200

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HSCEDM09D00003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline