DHS awarded Trinity Technology Group $24.5M for airport security screening, with 4 bidders in a competitive process

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $24,506,404 ($24.5M)

Contractor: Trinity Technology Group, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2011-09-26

End Date: 2017-05-31

Contract Duration: 2,074 days

Daily Burn Rate: $11.8K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: AIRPORT SECURITY SCREENING SERVICES AT SIOUX FALLS SD AND SONOMA COUNTY CA.

Place of Performance

Location: SIOUX FALLS, MINNEHAHA County, SOUTH DAKOTA, 57104

State: South Dakota Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $24.5 million to TRINITY TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. for work described as: AIRPORT SECURITY SCREENING SERVICES AT SIOUX FALLS SD AND SONOMA COUNTY CA. Key points: 1. The contract value of $24.5 million over its period of performance suggests a moderate scale for specialized security services. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process after exclusion of sources, suggesting a deliberate but potentially limited initial bidder pool. 3. The definitive contract type with firm fixed pricing implies a clear scope and established cost structure, reducing financial risk for the government. 4. Performance context is tied to airport security screening at specific locations, a critical but geographically contained function. 5. Sector positioning is within government services, specifically homeland security and transportation, a stable but highly regulated market. 6. The absence of small business set-aside indicates the primary contractor is likely not a small business, with potential subcontracting implications.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $24.5 million for airport security screening services over approximately five years appears to be within a reasonable range for specialized government contracts of this nature. Benchmarking against similar contracts for security services at airports would provide a more precise assessment of value for money. The firm fixed price structure suggests that pricing was determined upfront, which can be advantageous if costs are well-understood, but may limit flexibility if unforeseen issues arise.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while competition was sought, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the main solicitation. With 4 bidders, the competition level was moderate, suggesting that the market for these specific services is not overly saturated but also not a sole-source situation. This level of competition generally allows for some price discovery and vendor selection, but the exclusion of sources warrants further investigation into the rationale.

Taxpayer Impact: A moderate level of competition with 4 bidders helps ensure that taxpayer funds are not excessively high, as vendors compete on price and capability. However, the exclusion of sources could potentially limit the most competitive offers from reaching the government.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration, ensuring operational security at airports. Services delivered include essential airport security screening, contributing to national safety and passenger confidence. The geographic impact is focused on Sioux Falls, SD, and Sonoma County, CA, providing localized security enhancements. Workforce implications involve the employment of security personnel for screening operations, potentially including both direct hires and subcontractors.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition type raises questions about potential limitations on market access for some qualified vendors.
The definitive contract type, while offering clarity, might lack flexibility if operational requirements change significantly during the contract period.
The specific nature of airport security screening requires continuous vigilance and adaptation to evolving threats, posing an ongoing performance risk.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed price contract structure provides cost certainty for the government, mitigating budget overruns.
Having 4 bidders suggests a degree of market interest and capability for providing these specialized security services.
The contract duration of over 5 years indicates a stable, long-term need for these services by the TSA.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the government services sector, specifically focusing on security and transportation infrastructure. The market for airport security services is highly regulated and dominated by a few large players, alongside specialized providers. Spending in this area is driven by national security mandates and the need to maintain safe and efficient air travel. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within TSA's overall budget for screening operations and contracts with similar service providers.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). This suggests that the primary awardee, Trinity Technology Group, Inc., is likely not classified as a small business for this contract, or the nature of the requirement did not lend itself to a small business set-aside. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, but larger contracts often involve subcontracting opportunities, which could potentially benefit small businesses if pursued by the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. Accountability measures are typically embedded within the contract's performance work statement, including service level agreements and reporting requirements. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is publicly available. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract.

Related Government Programs

Airport Security Services
Transportation Security Administration Contracts
Homeland Security Services
Federal Security Guard Contracts
Definitive Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
Risk of performance issues in critical security screening operations.
Need for ongoing vigilance against evolving security threats.
Contract type may lack flexibility for unforeseen changes.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $24.5 million to TRINITY TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.. AIRPORT SECURITY SCREENING SERVICES AT SIOUX FALLS SD AND SONOMA COUNTY CA.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TRINITY TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $24.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-09-26. End: 2017-05-31.

What is the track record of Trinity Technology Group, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Homeland Security?

Trinity Technology Group, Inc. has a history of federal contracting, though specific details on their overall track record and performance metrics across all awards require deeper analysis of contract databases. For this particular contract with the TSA, the award was a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, suggesting a defined scope and expectation of performance. Examining past performance evaluations, any contract modifications, or disputes associated with Trinity Technology Group's previous federal awards would provide a more comprehensive understanding of their reliability and capability in fulfilling government requirements. A review of their contract history within DHS and other agencies would reveal the breadth of their experience and their success rate in similar service delivery.

How does the awarded amount of $24.5 million compare to similar airport security screening contracts awarded by the TSA?

The $24.5 million award for airport security screening services at Sioux Falls and Sonoma County, spread over approximately five years, represents a moderate contract value. To benchmark this effectively, one would need to compare it against other TSA contracts for similar services, considering factors like the number of airports, passenger volume, square footage of screening areas, and the specific security technologies deployed. Contracts for major hub airports would naturally be significantly higher. This contract's value suggests it covers medium-sized airports or specific operational needs within larger ones. A detailed comparison would involve analyzing the per-year cost and the scope of services provided in comparable contracts to ascertain if the pricing is competitive and reflects fair market value for the services rendered.

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

Key risks for this contract include potential performance failures in security screening, leading to safety lapses or operational disruptions. Another risk is cost overruns if the firm fixed price does not adequately account for unforeseen operational challenges or inflation, although this is mitigated by the pricing structure. Changes in security regulations or threat landscapes could also necessitate contract adjustments. Mitigation strategies likely involve robust performance monitoring by the TSA, clear service level agreements, defined penalties for non-performance, and regular communication channels with Trinity Technology Group. The definitive contract type and firm fixed price aim to manage financial risks, while the competitive bidding process theoretically selects a capable vendor.

How effective has the Transportation Security Administration been in managing similar security screening contracts?

The effectiveness of the TSA in managing security screening contracts can be viewed through various lenses, including contract performance, cost efficiency, and the overall security outcomes achieved. Historically, the TSA has faced scrutiny regarding contract management, balancing the need for consistent, high-level security with cost-effectiveness. Successes often involve leveraging technology and robust oversight to ensure contractor compliance. Challenges can arise from the sheer scale of operations, the dynamic nature of security threats, and ensuring consistent service quality across numerous locations and contractors. Analyzing specific contract performance data, audit reports from the DHS Inspector General, and GAO reviews related to TSA screening contracts would provide a more nuanced assessment of their management effectiveness.

What are the historical spending patterns for airport security screening services by the Department of Homeland Security?

Historical spending patterns for airport security screening services by DHS, primarily through the TSA, show a consistent and significant allocation of resources. This spending is driven by the mandate to secure air travel and has generally increased over time due to evolving security requirements, technological upgrades, and inflation. The TSA's budget consistently includes substantial line items for screening operations, personnel, and technology, much of which is delivered through contracts with private sector entities. Analyzing multi-year spending data would reveal trends in contract values, the types of services procured, and the distribution of funds across different geographic regions and service providers, highlighting the ongoing federal commitment to aviation security.

What is the significance of the 'exclusion of sources' clause in the contract's competition type?

The 'exclusion of sources' clause in 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' signifies that while the procurement was intended to be open, specific potential bidders were identified and excluded from participating in the solicitation process. The reasons for such exclusions can vary, including prior performance issues, failure to meet specific pre-qualification criteria, or proprietary technology requirements that only certain vendors could meet. This approach aims to ensure that only qualified and suitable vendors are considered, potentially streamlining the selection process. However, it also raises concerns about fairness and whether the exclusion might have inadvertently limited the competitive landscape, potentially impacting price discovery and the range of innovative solutions available to the government.

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 AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: HSTS03-10-R-SPP021

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 11781 LEE JACKSON MEMORIAL HWY STE 200, FAIRFAX, VA, 22033

Business Categories: Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $26,923,437

Exercised Options: $24,506,404

Current Obligation: $24,506,404

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline