DHS awarded over $21.8M for unarmed guard services, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,826,986 ($21.8M)

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

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2006-09-21

End Date: 2007-09-28

Contract Duration: 372 days

Daily Burn Rate: $58.7K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: OTHER (NONE OF THE ABOVE)

Sector: Other

Official Description: FOR PISPC TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL UNARMED GUARD SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS OF CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2007. DUNS #009741828 SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FY07 FUNDING (CLE)

Place of Performance

Location: LOS FRESNOS, CAMERON County, TEXAS, 78566

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $21.8 million to ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P. for work described as: FOR PISPC TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL UNARMED GUARD SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS OF CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2007. DUNS #009741828 SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FY07 FUNDING (CLE) Key points: 1. The contract was awarded on a non-competitive basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. The duration of the contract was approximately one year, suggesting a need for ongoing security services. 3. The services provided are essential for border security and immigration enforcement operations. 4. The contractor, Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P., has a track record with the agency. 5. The contract value is substantial, indicating a significant reliance on external security providers. 6. The lack of competition raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of approximately $21.8 million for one year of unarmed guard services appears high, especially given the non-competitive award. Without comparable contract data or a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The agency should provide justification for the pricing and demonstrate how it was determined to be fair and reasonable. The absence of a competitive process suggests a missed opportunity to potentially secure lower rates through market forces.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order. This means that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. While specific justifications for sole-source awards can vary, this approach bypasses the standard competitive process, which typically involves soliciting proposals from several qualified contractors. The lack of competition means that price discovery through market mechanisms was not utilized, potentially leading to higher costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government did not leverage market competition to ensure the lowest possible price for these essential security services.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, which receive essential security support. The services delivered include unarmed guard services, crucial for maintaining security at various facilities and locations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Texas, where the contractor is based and services are likely rendered. The contract supports a private sector workforce providing specialized security services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price discovery and potentially inflates costs.
Lack of transparency in pricing justification for a sole-source contract.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to non-competitive nature of the award.

Positive Signals

Contract provides essential security services for a critical government function.
Contractor is established and likely has experience with agency needs.
Services are delivered within the specified contract period.

Sector Analysis

The security services industry is a significant sector within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services market. This contract falls under the Security Guards and Patrol Services sub-sector (NAICS 561612). The federal government is a major consumer of security services, contracting for a wide range of protective measures across various agencies. Benchmarking this contract's value would ideally involve comparing its per-unit costs or total value against similar contracts for unarmed guard services awarded competitively by other federal agencies or within different regions.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not awarded to a small business (ss: false) and there is no indication of small business subcontracting requirements (sb: false). Therefore, this specific award does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem through set-asides or mandated subcontracting. The focus was on securing the required services, rather than using the contract as a tool for small business development.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contracting officers and program managers within the Department of Homeland Security. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award; detailed justifications for sole-source procurements are often not publicly disseminated. Accountability would be managed through performance monitoring and adherence to contract terms. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Homeland Security Contracts
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Security Services
Federal Security Guard Contracts
Non-Competitive Contract Awards

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Lack of price competition
Potential for overpayment

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $21.8 million to ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P.. FOR PISPC TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL UNARMED GUARD SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TERMS OF CONTRACT FOR THE PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1, 2006 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2007. DUNS #009741828 SUBJECT TO AVAILABILITY OF FY07 FUNDING (CLE)

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 $21.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-21. End: 2007-09-28.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a non-competitive basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded as a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER.' While the specific justification is not detailed in the provided snippet, common reasons for non-competitive awards include urgent and compelling needs, sole-source availability of the required service or item, or when only one responsible source can satisfy agency requirements. For a contract of this magnitude and duration, a detailed justification should exist within the agency's procurement file, outlining why competition was not feasible or practical. This justification is crucial for understanding the circumstances that led to bypassing the standard competitive bidding process and is a key factor in assessing the overall value and fairness of the award.

How does the contract value compare to similar security guard services procured by the government?

Direct comparison of the $21.8 million contract value for one year of unarmed guard services is challenging without access to a comprehensive database of similar federal contracts, particularly those awarded competitively. However, the non-competitive nature of this award raises a red flag. Typically, competitive bidding drives down prices. If similar services were procured competitively, it is plausible that the cost per guard or per hour could be lower than what was paid under this sole-source contract. To perform a robust comparison, one would need to analyze contracts with similar scope, geographic location, and service levels (e.g., number of guards, hours of operation, specific security requirements) that were awarded through full and open competition.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a large contract non-competitively?

Awarding a large contract like this ($21.8 million) non-competitively carries several risks. Firstly, there's the risk of paying a higher price than necessary because the government did not benefit from the price pressures of a competitive market. Secondly, it can lead to reduced innovation, as contractors may have less incentive to offer novel or more cost-effective solutions when they are the only option. Thirdly, it can create a perception of favoritism or a lack of due diligence in seeking the best value for taxpayer money. Finally, it may limit the agency's ability to switch to a potentially better-performing or more cost-effective vendor in the future if the current contractor's performance falters, due to the established relationship and the hurdles of initiating a new competitive process.

What is the track record of Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P. with the Department of Homeland Security?

Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P. (APS) has a history of contracting with federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While the provided data confirms APS as the contractor for this specific $21.8 million delivery order, a deeper dive into their past performance with DHS and other agencies would be necessary for a complete assessment. This would involve reviewing past contract awards, performance evaluations, any past performance issues or disputes, and the overall scope and value of previous contracts. A positive track record with DHS could lend some confidence to the award, but it does not negate the concerns raised by the non-competitive nature of this particular procurement.

How does the duration and value of this contract align with typical federal spending on security services?

The contract duration of approximately one year (October 1, 2006, through September 28, 2007) is typical for many federal service contracts, allowing for annual review and potential re-competition. The value of $21.8 million for this period is substantial and indicates a significant requirement for security personnel. Federal spending on security services is consistently high across various agencies, reflecting the ongoing need for physical security. However, the alignment of this value with 'typical' spending is heavily influenced by the specific services required, the number of personnel, geographic location, and prevailing market rates. The non-competitive award makes it difficult to definitively state if this value is aligned with market norms or represents an outlier.

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: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: OTHER (NONE OF THE ABOVE) (3)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 4455 S SPID STE 105A, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX, 27

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,826,986

Exercised Options: $21,826,986

Current Obligation: $21,826,986

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: ACD2C0009

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline