DHS awards $63M contract for security screening services, raising questions on value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $63,277,486 ($63.3M)

Contractor: Vmd-Mt Security

Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security

Start Date: 2012-09-01

End Date: 2017-06-30

Contract Duration: 1,763 days

Daily Burn Rate: $35.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::CT::IGF SECURITY SCREENING SERVICES AT EYW, ROC, AND TUP.

Place of Performance

Location: ROCHESTER, MONROE County, NEW YORK, 14624

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Homeland Security obligated $63.3 million to VMD-MT SECURITY for work described as: IGF::CT::IGF SECURITY SCREENING SERVICES AT EYW, ROC, AND TUP. Key points: 1. The contract's value of $63.3 million over nearly five years suggests a significant investment in security screening. 2. The procurement method, 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicates a complex bidding process that may have limited initial participation. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the final value could fluctuate based on service delivery. 4. The duration of 1763 days (approximately 4.8 years) provides a long-term commitment for the contractor. 5. The contract was awarded to VMD-MT SECURITY, a company with a substantial federal contract history. 6. The services are categorized under 'Security Guards and Patrol Services,' a broad classification that requires detailed performance metrics for effective oversight.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $63.3 million for security screening services over nearly five years appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar contracts for airport security screening is challenging without more granular data on the specific services and locations covered. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests cost certainty, but the absence of detailed performance metrics makes a definitive value-for-money assessment difficult. The number of bidders (5) is moderate, which could indicate some level of competition, but the 'after exclusion of sources' clause warrants further investigation into potential limitations.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' with 5 bidders. This procurement strategy suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the main solicitation. This could indicate a specialized requirement or a previous relationship with certain vendors. The presence of 5 bidders indicates some level of market interest, but the exclusion clause might have narrowed the competitive field, potentially impacting price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition, despite being 'full and open' after exclusions, may have resulted in a higher price for taxpayers than a truly unrestricted open competition. It is crucial to understand the rationale behind the source exclusion to determine if it was justified and if it led to a suboptimal outcome for the government.

Public Impact

Travelers at EYW, ROC, and TUP airports benefit from enhanced security screening. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) receives essential security services to maintain airport safety. The contract supports jobs within the security services sector, particularly in New York. The geographic impact is focused on specific airports, ensuring security operations at these locations. The workforce implications include employment opportunities for security personnel employed by VMD-MT SECURITY.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition method could limit broader market participation and potentially inflate costs.
Lack of detailed performance metrics in the provided data makes it difficult to assess the true effectiveness and efficiency of the services rendered.
The contract's significant dollar value necessitates robust oversight to ensure funds are used appropriately and services meet all requirements.
The duration of the contract (nearly 5 years) means potential risks associated with long-term vendor lock-in or evolving security needs are present.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming services are delivered as specified.
The award to a single contractor (VMD-MT SECURITY) can streamline management and ensure consistent service delivery across the specified locations.
The contract duration of nearly five years offers stability and predictability for both the agency and the contractor.
The moderate number of bidders (5) suggests a degree of market interest and potential for competitive pricing, even with the exclusion clause.

Sector Analysis

The federal spending on security services, particularly for transportation hubs, is a significant component of national security budgets. The market for security guards and patrol services is large and diverse, encompassing both private sector firms and government contractors. This contract fits within the broader category of government support services, where agencies outsource non-core functions to specialized companies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing the cost per hour of security personnel, the number of personnel deployed, and the specific security technologies or protocols employed across different agencies and airports.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, VMD-MT SECURITY, is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this contract. The impact on the small business ecosystem would be minimal unless VMD-MT SECURITY voluntarily engages small businesses for specialized services or support, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. As a definitive contract, it likely involves detailed performance work statements and regular reporting requirements. Accountability measures would be tied to meeting these performance standards. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where basic award information is available. Specific Inspector General jurisdiction would depend on the nature of any potential fraud, waste, or abuse identified within the contract's execution.

Related Government Programs

Airport Security Services
Transportation Security Administration Contracts
Federal Security Guard Services
Homeland Security Contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules (if applicable for procurement)

Risk Flags

Potential for limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes value assessment difficult.
Significant contract value requires robust oversight to prevent waste or fraud.
Long contract duration may pose risks related to evolving needs or vendor lock-in.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Homeland Security awarded $63.3 million to VMD-MT SECURITY. IGF::CT::IGF SECURITY SCREENING SERVICES AT EYW, ROC, AND TUP.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is VMD-MT SECURITY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $63.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-09-01. End: 2017-06-30.

What is the historical performance record of VMD-MT SECURITY with the federal government, particularly in providing security screening services?

VMD-MT SECURITY has a significant history of federal contracting, primarily with agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense. Their contract portfolio often includes security services, personnel support, and facility management. Analyzing their past performance on similar contracts, including any documented issues, awards for excellence, or contract modifications, would provide crucial context for assessing their reliability and capability in fulfilling the current $63.3 million award. Specific details on past performance ratings, past performance questionnaires, and any disputes or terminations would be essential for a comprehensive evaluation.

How does the per-hour or per-employee cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar security screening services at airports?

A precise per-unit cost comparison is difficult without knowing the exact number of personnel deployed, their hours, and the specific security tasks performed at EYW, ROC, and TUP. However, the total contract value of $63.3 million over approximately 1763 days suggests an average annual value of roughly $12.66 million. If we assume a standard 24/7 operation with a team of, for example, 50 screeners, the average annual cost per screener would be around $253,200. This figure needs to be contextualized against prevailing wages, benefits, training costs, and overhead for security personnel in the relevant geographic areas. Industry benchmarks for airport security screeners can vary widely, but this average annual cost per employee appears on the higher end, warranting scrutiny of the specific service requirements and efficiency metrics.

What specific risks are associated with the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' procurement method used for this contract?

The 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' method, while aiming for open competition, introduces specific risks. The 'exclusion of sources' implies that certain potential bidders were identified and disqualified or not invited to bid from the outset. This could be due to pre-qualification requirements, past performance issues with specific vendors, or specific technical capabilities deemed necessary. The risk is that this exclusion might have unnecessarily narrowed the competitive field, potentially leading to higher prices or reduced innovation compared to a truly unrestricted open competition. It also raises questions about the transparency and fairness of the initial source selection process, and whether the exclusion was fully justified and documented.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) and service level agreements (SLAs) governing this contract, and how are they monitored?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this contract. However, for a security screening services contract of this magnitude, typical KPIs would likely include metrics related to screening wait times, detection rates of prohibited items, personnel adherence to security protocols, incident response times, and employee training compliance. Monitoring these KPIs is crucial for ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the security services. Oversight agencies like the TSA would typically have contract officers and technical representatives responsible for reviewing performance reports, conducting site visits, and ensuring that VMD-MT SECURITY meets or exceeds the contractual requirements. Failure to meet KPIs could result in penalties or contract modifications.

How does the total spending on security screening services by the TSA compare to this specific contract award?

To compare this $63.3 million contract to the TSA's total spending on security screening, one would need access to the TSA's comprehensive budget and contract databases. The TSA's annual budget is in the billions of dollars, a significant portion of which is allocated to personnel, technology, and services for screening passengers and baggage. This single contract represents a substantial investment for the specific airports covered (EYW, ROC, TUP) over its nearly five-year duration. However, it is likely one of many such contracts the TSA manages nationwide. A full comparison would require analyzing the TSA's total obligations for similar services across all airports to determine the relative scale and significance of this particular award within the agency's overall security operations.

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

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 6564 LOISDALE CT, SPRINGFIELD, VA, 22150

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $63,725,929

Exercised Options: $63,277,486

Current Obligation: $63,277,486

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline