FEMA awards $18.6M for security guard services to Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,560,313 ($18.6M)

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

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2006-01-21

End Date: 2008-04-30

Contract Duration: 830 days

Daily Burn Rate: $22.4K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SECURITY GUARD SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: BILOXI, HARRISON County, MISSISSIPPI, 39531

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $18.6 million to ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P. for work described as: SECURITY GUARD SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract value represents a significant investment in physical security infrastructure. 2. Competition dynamics for this contract require further examination to ensure optimal pricing. 3. Performance history and potential for contract modifications are key risk indicators. 4. The contract duration of 830 days suggests a need for sustained security operations. 5. This award positions Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P. as a key provider in the federal security sector. 6. The fixed-price contract type offers cost certainty but may limit flexibility for unforeseen requirements.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award of $18.6 million over approximately two years for security guard services appears to be within a reasonable range for federal contracts of this nature. However, without specific details on the scope of services, number of personnel, and geographic coverage, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar contracts for security services in regions with comparable cost of living and threat levels would provide a clearer picture of whether the pricing is competitive and reflects efficient resource allocation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

This contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, indicating that multiple vendors likely had the opportunity to bid. The presence of 3 bids suggests a moderate level of competition. While competition is generally positive for price discovery, a higher number of bidders could potentially drive prices down further and encourage more innovative service offerings. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria would offer more insight into the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process, even with a limited number of bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a more efficient market and potentially securing services at a more favorable price point compared to sole-source or limited competition scenarios.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are federal agencies requiring physical security, such as FEMA, ensuring the protection of assets and personnel. Services delivered include the provision of trained security guards to maintain order and prevent unauthorized access. The geographic impact is concentrated in Mississippi, as indicated by the state code 'MS'. Workforce implications include the creation of jobs for security personnel within the region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if initial requirements are not clearly defined.
Reliance on a single contractor for critical security functions could pose a risk if performance falters.
Ensuring consistent service quality across all deployed personnel requires robust oversight.

Positive Signals

Competitive award process suggests potential for cost savings and quality service.
Fixed-price contract provides budget predictability for the agency.
The contractor's selection indicates they met the agency's technical and performance requirements.

Sector Analysis

The federal security services market is substantial, encompassing a wide range of protective services for government facilities and operations. This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on security and investigation services. Comparable spending benchmarks for similar security guard contracts can vary significantly based on the level of security required, the number of personnel, and the duration of the contract. The federal government is a major consumer of these services, driving demand and influencing market dynamics.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P., is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. The impact on the small business ecosystem would depend on whether the prime contractor actively seeks to engage small businesses for specialized services or support roles, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within FEMA. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and payment schedules tied to successful service delivery. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise during the contract's performance.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules for Security and Protection Services
Department of Defense Security Contracts
Department of Justice Security Services

Risk Flags

Moderate competition level may impact price optimization.
Fixed-price contract requires careful monitoring for scope creep or quality degradation.
Performance history of the contractor needs further review for reliability.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $18.6 million to ASSET PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES, L.P.. SECURITY GUARD SERVICES

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 (Federal Emergency Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-01-21. End: 2008-04-30.

What is the historical spending pattern for security guard services by FEMA in Mississippi?

Analyzing FEMA's historical spending on security guard services specifically within Mississippi requires access to detailed procurement data over multiple fiscal years. While this specific contract award of $18.6 million is noted, understanding the broader pattern involves identifying previous contracts, their values, durations, and the contractors involved. Trends in spending could reveal whether this award represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in security services for the region. Factors such as disaster response needs, changes in security protocols, or shifts in agency priorities could influence these patterns. Without a comprehensive historical dataset for FEMA in Mississippi, it is difficult to definitively characterize the spending pattern beyond this single award.

How does the per-unit cost of security personnel under this contract compare to industry benchmarks?

Determining the per-unit cost of security personnel requires detailed information on the number of guards deployed, their hourly rates, and the total contract value allocated to labor. The provided data does not break down the $18.6 million award into specific labor costs versus other potential expenses (e.g., equipment, management overhead). To compare with industry benchmarks, one would need to know the average hourly wage for security guards in Mississippi, factoring in experience levels, certifications, and the specific duties performed. Benchmarking would also consider the contract type (fixed-price) and the level of service required (e.g., armed vs. unarmed, 24/7 coverage). Without these granular details, a precise per-unit cost comparison is not feasible.

What is the track record of Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P. with federal contracts, particularly with FEMA?

Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P. has a history of receiving federal contracts, as indicated by this award. To assess their track record, a review of their past performance on similar contracts, especially those with FEMA or other homeland security-related agencies, would be necessary. This would involve examining contract completion records, any reported performance issues or disputes, and client satisfaction feedback if available through government performance assessment systems. A contractor's experience with the specific requirements of federal security services, their ability to manage large-scale operations, and their compliance history are crucial factors in evaluating their reliability and capability. Further investigation into their contract portfolio would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their performance.

What are the potential risks associated with a fixed-price contract for security guard services?

Fixed-price contracts offer cost certainty for the buyer but can introduce risks for both parties. For the government (FEMA), the primary risk is that the contractor may cut corners on service quality or personnel to maintain profitability if costs exceed initial estimates. Conversely, if the contractor significantly underestimates costs, they may seek change orders or modifications to recoup losses, potentially increasing the overall contract price. For the contractor, the risk lies in unforeseen cost increases (e.g., labor, fuel, insurance) that are not adequately covered by the fixed price. Effective management and clear performance standards are crucial to mitigate these risks and ensure the government receives the required level of service.

How many bids were received, and what does this imply about the competitiveness of the market for these services?

The data indicates that 3 bids were received for this contract. While this demonstrates some level of competition, it is on the lower end of what might be considered robust competition for a contract of this magnitude. A higher number of bidders (e.g., 5 or more) typically suggests a more dynamic and competitive market, potentially leading to better pricing and service innovation. With only three bidders, there is a possibility that the market may be somewhat concentrated, or that other potential providers did not find the opportunity sufficiently attractive or were otherwise unable to bid. This level of competition warrants careful review to ensure that FEMA secured the best possible value.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing › Other Apparel Accessories and Other Apparel Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,560,313

Exercised Options: $18,560,313

Current Obligation: $18,560,313

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS07F0740N

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline