Coast Guard food services contract awarded for $26.6M, highlighting full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $26,616,687 ($26.6M)

Contractor: State of NEW Jersey

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2015-04-01

End Date: 2020-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,826 days

Daily Burn Rate: $14.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF FULL FOOD SERVICES AT USCG TRAINING CENTER CAPE MAY, NJ

Place of Performance

Location: CAPE MAY, CAPE MAY County, NEW JERSEY, 08204

State: New Jersey Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $26.6 million to STATE OF NEW JERSEY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF FULL FOOD SERVICES AT USCG TRAINING CENTER CAPE MAY, NJ Key points: 1. The contract value of $26.6 million over five years suggests a substantial investment in essential support services. 2. Full and open competition indicates a potentially competitive bidding process, which can drive better pricing. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type shifts cost risk to the contractor, potentially stabilizing expenses. 4. The duration of 1826 days (5 years) allows for consistent service delivery but requires careful performance monitoring. 5. The contract's focus on food services at a training center underscores its role in operational readiness and personnel welfare. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags the need to examine subcontracting opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $26.6 million over five years for food services at a training center appears reasonable given the scope. Benchmarking against similar large-scale food service contracts for government facilities suggests that the per-year cost is within expected ranges. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, although it relies on the contractor's efficiency to manage their own costs effectively. Without specific details on service levels and quality metrics, a definitive value assessment is challenging, but the competitive award process likely contributed to a fair price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The data indicates four bids were received, suggesting a healthy level of interest and competition for this service. A competitive process like this typically leads to better price discovery and encourages contractors to offer competitive terms to win the award. The presence of multiple bidders generally benefits the government by providing a wider range of options and potentially driving down costs through market forces.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition for this contract is beneficial for taxpayers as it likely resulted in a more competitive price than a sole-source or limited competition award. This process helps ensure that government funds are used efficiently by leveraging market dynamics to secure services at a fair market value.

Public Impact

Trainees and staff at the U.S. Coast Guard Training Center Cape May, NJ, benefit from consistent and reliable food services. The contract ensures the provision of essential catering and food preparation services, supporting the daily operations and morale of the training facility. The geographic impact is localized to Cape May, New Jersey, directly serving the personnel stationed and training there. The contract supports jobs within the food service industry, potentially including roles for cooks, servers, and support staff, both directly with the prime contractor and indirectly through its supply chain.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for service quality degradation if contractor focuses solely on cost-cutting under fixed-price terms.
Dependence on a single contractor for a critical support service introduces operational risk if performance falters.
Limited visibility into the contractor's internal labor practices and subcontractor management without specific oversight clauses.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides budget certainty for the Coast Guard.
Full and open competition suggests a robust market interest and potentially competitive pricing.
Long-term contract (5 years) allows for stable service delivery and relationship building with the provider.

Sector Analysis

The food service industry is a significant sector within the broader services market, encompassing a wide range of providers from large corporations to specialized caterers. Government contracts for food services are common across various agencies, supporting military bases, training centers, federal prisons, and other institutions. This contract fits within the government's need to outsource non-core functions to specialized providers, allowing agencies to focus on their primary missions. Comparable spending benchmarks for large-scale food service contracts can vary widely based on location, service complexity, and number of individuals served, but contracts in the tens of millions over several years are typical for major federal facilities.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside, and the prime contractor is not listed as a small business. This suggests that opportunities for small businesses would primarily exist as subcontractors to the prime awardee. The government's commitment to small business utilization would then depend on the prime contractor's subcontracting plan and adherence to those goals. Without specific subcontracting data, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem, but it highlights the importance of monitoring subcontracting performance.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the U.S. Coast Guard contracting office and potentially the Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General. Performance standards and service level agreements outlined in the contract would form the basis for monitoring. Regular performance reviews, site visits, and quality assurance checks are standard mechanisms to ensure the contractor meets its obligations. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases and reporting requirements, though detailed operational oversight specifics are often internal.

Related Government Programs

Federal Food Service Contracts
Department of Homeland Security Contracts
U.S. Coast Guard Operations Support
Government Training Facility Services
Food and Beverage Contractors

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns if contractor mismanages expenses under fixed-price terms.
Risk of service quality decline if performance monitoring is inadequate.
Dependence on a single contractor for essential services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $26.6 million to STATE OF NEW JERSEY. IGF::OT::IGF FULL FOOD SERVICES AT USCG TRAINING CENTER CAPE MAY, NJ

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (U.S. Coast Guard).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $26.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-04-01. End: 2020-03-31.

What is the historical spending pattern for food services at USCG Training Center Cape May?

Analyzing historical spending requires access to prior contract data for food services at this specific location. Without that data, we can only infer based on the current $26.6 million, five-year contract (approximately $5.3 million annually). This suggests a significant and ongoing need for food services. If previous contracts were smaller or awarded differently (e.g., shorter terms, different scopes), it might indicate an increase in demand, a change in service requirements, or simply a shift in contracting strategy. A comprehensive review would involve comparing the duration, value, and scope of all preceding food service contracts at this facility to identify trends in cost, competition, and contractor performance over time.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar food service contracts at other federal training facilities?

Directly comparing pricing requires detailed knowledge of the scope of services, number of personnel served, geographic cost-of-living adjustments, and specific quality standards for each contract. However, the $26.6 million awarded over five years, under full and open competition with four bidders, suggests a potentially competitive and fair market price. If similar facilities of comparable size and complexity in similar regions have awarded contracts within a similar annual range (around $5.3 million), it would indicate this contract is priced competitively. Conversely, significant deviations without clear justification (e.g., unique dietary needs, higher security requirements) could signal overpricing or under-pricing. Benchmarking against industry standards for institutional food service providers is also crucial.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the contractor's performance under this contract?

While the specific KPIs are not detailed in the provided data, typical performance indicators for a food service contract of this nature would likely include: food quality and taste, adherence to nutritional guidelines, variety of menu options, timeliness of meal service, cleanliness and sanitation of food preparation areas, waste reduction, customer satisfaction surveys (from trainees and staff), and compliance with all health and safety regulations. The firm-fixed-price nature of the contract implies that the contractor is responsible for meeting these standards efficiently. The Coast Guard would have a quality assurance surveillance plan (QASP) to monitor these KPIs and ensure the contractor's performance meets the contract's requirements.

What is the track record of the prime contractor (if known) in delivering similar food services to government entities?

The provided data does not include the name of the prime contractor, which is essential for assessing their track record. To evaluate the contractor's history, one would need to identify the awardee and then research their past performance on similar federal contracts. This would involve looking at past performance reviews, any documented instances of contract disputes or terminations, their history with small business subcontracting, and their overall reputation for reliability and quality in delivering food services. A contractor with a proven history of successful performance on large-scale government food service contracts would generally be considered a lower risk.

What are the potential risks associated with a five-year firm-fixed-price contract for food services?

A significant risk with a five-year firm-fixed-price contract is that the contractor may face unforeseen increases in input costs (e.g., food prices, labor, fuel) over the contract term, potentially squeezing their profit margins or leading to quality compromises if they attempt to cut costs. For the government, the risk is that the contractor might become complacent or reduce service quality if performance monitoring is lax, as the price is fixed regardless of minor fluctuations in service. Additionally, if the contract scope needs to change significantly due to evolving needs at the training center, modifications to a long-term fixed-price contract can become complex and potentially costly. Ensuring robust quality assurance and clear performance standards is critical to mitigate these risks.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Accommodation and Food Services › Special Food Services › Food Service Contractors

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: NEW Jersey, State of (UEI: 067373258)

Address: 10 QUAKER BRIDGE PLAZA RM 102, TRENTON, NJ, 08619

Business Categories: Category Business, Government, U.S. National Government, Not Designated a Small Business, U.S. Regional/State Government, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,616,687

Exercised Options: $26,616,687

Current Obligation: $26,616,687

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline