NASA's $130M security contract with J. Diamond Group, Inc. awarded in 2002, spanning 10 years
Contract Overview
Contract Amount: $130,483,380 ($130.5M)
Contractor: J. Diamond Group, Inc., the
Awarding Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Start Date: 2002-01-28
End Date: 2012-09-30
Contract Duration: 3,898 days
Daily Burn Rate: $33.5K/day
Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES
Number of Offers Received: 4
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE
Sector: Other
Official Description: SECURITY SUPPORT SERVICES.
Place of Performance
Location: HOUSTON, HARRIS County, TEXAS, 77058
State: Texas Government Spending
Plain-Language Summary
National Aeronautics and Space Administration obligated $130.5 million to J. DIAMOND GROUP, INC., THE for work described as: SECURITY SUPPORT SERVICES. Key points: 1. Contract awarded via full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a potentially competitive process. 2. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes performance but can lead to higher costs. 3. With a duration of 3898 days (over 10 years), this represents a significant long-term commitment. 4. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561612 points to Security Guards and Patrol Services. 5. The contract was awarded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and administered by the same agency. 6. The base of operations for this contract is Texas (ST: TX, SN: TEXAS).
Value Assessment
Rating: fair
Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without specific performance metrics and detailed cost breakdowns. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure suggests that the final cost could vary based on performance, making direct price comparisons difficult. However, a 10-year duration for security services at this scale implies a substantial investment, and the value would depend heavily on the effectiveness of the security provided and the efficiency of cost management by the contractor.
Cost Per Unit: N/A
Competition Analysis
Competition Level: limited
The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This designation suggests that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources may have been excluded prior to the solicitation, potentially limiting the breadth of competition. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the exclusion of sources implies a less than fully open process.
Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of sources, even if justified, could potentially limit price discovery and may not have secured the absolute best value for taxpayers compared to a truly unrestricted full and open competition.
Public Impact
The primary beneficiaries are NASA facilities and personnel, who receive security guard and patrol services. This contract ensures the physical security and safety of critical government assets and operations. The geographic impact is concentrated in Texas, where the contractor is based and services are likely performed. The contract supports jobs within the security services industry, particularly in Texas.
Waste & Efficiency Indicators
Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10
Warning Flags
- Potential for cost overruns due to the Cost Plus Award Fee structure if not managed tightly.
- Limited competition due to 'exclusion of sources' could impact price competitiveness.
- Long contract duration (over 10 years) may reduce flexibility to adopt newer security technologies or approaches.
Positive Signals
- Awarded by NASA, suggesting a high standard of vetting and requirement for specialized services.
- The contract has a defined period, allowing for reassessment at its conclusion.
- The Cost Plus Award Fee structure incentivizes contractor performance, potentially leading to high-quality security.
Sector Analysis
The security services industry is a significant sector within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services market. This contract falls under security guards and patrol services, a segment focused on physical security. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale government contracts for similar security services across various agencies, considering factors like facility size, threat levels, and geographic location. NASA's spending in this area reflects the critical need for robust security at its installations.
Small Business Impact
The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this contract. This suggests that the primary awardee, J. Diamond Group, Inc., is likely a larger entity, and there may be limited direct subcontracting opportunities for small businesses unless specified within the contract's performance requirements, which are not detailed here.
Oversight & Accountability
Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As a Cost Plus Award Fee contract, NASA would be responsible for monitoring the contractor's costs, evaluating performance against award criteria, and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Transparency would be facilitated through contract reporting requirements, and any specific Inspector General jurisdiction would be determined by NASA's internal policies and the nature of any potential investigations.
Related Government Programs
- NASA Security Operations
- Federal Protective Service Contracts
- Department of Defense Security Services
- General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule Contracts for Security
Risk Flags
- Potential for limited competition due to source exclusion.
- Cost uncertainty inherent in Cost Plus Award Fee contracts.
- Long contract duration may limit adaptability to evolving security needs or technologies.
Tags
security-services, nasa, texas, definitive-contract, large-contract, cost-plus-award-fee, full-and-open-competition-after-exclusion-of-sources, security-guards-and-patrol-services, long-term-contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is this federal contract paying for?
National Aeronautics and Space Administration awarded $130.5 million to J. DIAMOND GROUP, INC., THE. SECURITY SUPPORT SERVICES.
Who is the contractor on this award?
The obligated recipient is J. DIAMOND GROUP, INC., THE.
Which agency awarded this contract?
Awarding agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).
What is the total obligated amount?
The obligated amount is $130.5 million.
What is the period of performance?
Start: 2002-01-28. End: 2012-09-30.
What was the specific justification for excluding certain sources in the 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' award?
The justification for excluding specific sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award typically stems from requirements that only certain types of contractors can meet, such as specialized technical capabilities, existing security clearances, or unique past performance relevant to the specific needs of the agency. For NASA's security contract, this could have involved requirements for personnel with specific security clearances, experience with sensitive government facilities, or the ability to integrate with existing NASA security systems. Without the specific solicitation documents or award justification, the precise reasons remain unknown, but such exclusions are generally intended to ensure the most qualified contractor is selected for critical services, even if it narrows the competitive pool.
How did the performance of J. Diamond Group, Inc. compare to the award criteria under the Cost Plus Award Fee structure?
The provided data does not include specific performance metrics or award fee determinations for J. Diamond Group, Inc. under this contract. A Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure means that the contractor receives reimbursement for allowable costs plus a fixed fee that is adjusted based on performance against pre-defined criteria. To assess performance, one would need access to NASA's performance evaluations, award fee determinations, and potentially contractor self-reporting. These documents would detail how well J. Diamond Group met objectives related to security effectiveness, response times, personnel conduct, and adherence to protocols. Without this information, a direct comparison to award criteria is not possible.
What were the primary risks identified during the solicitation and award process for this security contract?
Primary risks for a large-scale security contract like this often include contractor performance failures (e.g., inadequate security coverage, breaches), cost overruns (especially with CPAF contracts), potential for fraud or abuse, and national security risks if sensitive information is compromised. Given the 'exclusion of sources' designation, a risk might also be that the limited competition resulted in a less competitive price or that a potentially better-suited contractor was precluded from bidding. NASA would have likely conducted a risk assessment covering these areas, implementing mitigation strategies such as robust oversight, clear performance standards, and defined penalties or incentives within the contract terms.
How does the total contract value of approximately $130 million over 10 years compare to similar security contracts awarded by NASA or other federal agencies?
A total contract value of $130 million spread over 10 years equates to an average annual value of $13 million. This figure is substantial and falls within the range of large-scale security contracts for major federal facilities or agencies. For context, other federal agencies like the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security often award security contracts in the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars annually, depending on the scope and number of facilities covered. NASA's own security needs at its various centers could justify such an expenditure, especially if it encompasses comprehensive physical security, access control, and patrol services across multiple high-security locations. Benchmarking would require detailed comparison of service scope, geographic coverage, and specific security requirements.
What is the historical spending pattern for security services by NASA, and how does this contract fit within that pattern?
Historical spending data for NASA's security services would reveal trends in contract awards, average contract values, and the types of services procured. This $130 million contract, awarded in 2002 and ending in 2012, represents a significant, long-term investment during that period. To understand its place, one would need to examine NASA's total security spending in the early 2000s and compare the value and duration of this contract to other concurrent security contracts. If NASA typically awards multi-year, high-value contracts for security, this fits the pattern. Conversely, if NASA's historical approach was to use shorter-term, smaller contracts, this would represent a deviation or a consolidation of services.
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: 4
Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)
Evaluated Preference: NONE
Contractor Details
Address: 13101 PRESTON RD STE 212, DALLAS, TX, 75240
Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Woman Owned Business
Financial Breakdown
Contract Ceiling: $133,701,845
Exercised Options: $133,576,434
Current Obligation: $130,483,380
Contract Characteristics
Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED
Timeline
Start Date: 2002-01-28
Current End Date: 2012-09-30
Potential End Date: 2012-09-30 00:00:00
Last Modified: 2020-02-26
More Contracts from J. Diamond Group, Inc., the
- Armed Guard Services State of Oklahoma. Contract NO. Gs-07f-0305l. Task Order NO. Hscec7-08-F-00078. PDN NO. PJ8R700327 — $13.1M (Department of Homeland Security)
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration Contracts
- International Space Station — $22.4B (THE Boeing Company)
- TAS::80 0124::TAS Design, Development, Test&evaluation of Project Orion — $15.5B (Lockheed Martin Corp)
- Provide Developmental Hardware and Test Articles, and Manufacture and Assemble Ares I Upper Stages. the Upper Stage (US) Element IS an Integral Part of the Ares I Launch Vehicle and Provides the Second Stage of Flight. the US Element IS Responsible for the Roll Control During the First Stage Burn and Separation; and Will Provide the Guidance and Navigation, Command and Data Handling, and Other Avionics Functions for the Ares I During ALL Phases of the Ascent Flight. the US Element IS a NEW Design That Emphasizes Safety, Operability, and Minimum Life Cycle Cost. the Overall Design, Development, Test and Evaluation (ddt&e), Production, and Sustaining Engineering Efforts Include Activities Performed by Three Organizations; the Nasa Design Team (NDT), the Upper Stage Production Contractor (uspc) and the Instrument Unit Production Contractor (iupc). for Clarity, the Uspc Will BE Referred to AS the Contractor Throughout This Document. Nasa IS Responsible for the Integration of the Primary Elements of the Ares I Launch Vehicle Including: the First Stage, US Including Instrument Unit (IU), and US Engine; and Will Also Integrate the Ares I Launch Vehicle AT the Launch Site. Nasa IS Responsible for the Ddt&e, Including Technical and Programmatic Integration of the US Subsystems and Government-Furnished Property. Nasa Will Lead the Effort to Develop the Requirements and Specifications of the US Element, the Development Plan and Testing Requirements, and ALL Design Documentation, Initial Manufacturing and Assembly Process Planning, Logistics Planning, and Operations Support Planning. Development, Qualification, and Acceptance Testing Will BE Conducted by Nasa and the Contractor to Satisfy Requirements and for Risk Mitigation. Nasa IS Responsible for the Overall Upper Stage Verification and Validation Process and Will Require Support From the Contractor. the Contractor IS Responsible for the Manufacture and Assembly of the Upper Stage Test Flight and Operational Upper Stage Units Including the Installation of Upper Stage Instrument Unit, the Government-Furnished US Engine, Booster Separation Motors, and Other Government-Furnished Property. a Description of the Nasa Managed and Performed Efforts IS Contained in the US Work Packages and Will BE Made Available to the Contractor to Ensure Their Understanding of the Roles and Responsibilities of the NDT, Iupc, and Contractor During the Design, Development, and Operation of the US Element. the US Conceptual Design Described in the Uso-Clv-Se-25704 US Design Definition Document (DDD) IS the Baseline Design for This Contract. the Contractors Early Role Will BE to Provide Producibility Engineering Support to Nasa VIA the Established US Office Structure and to Provide Inputs Into the Final Design Configuration, Specifications, and Standards. Nasa Will Transition the Manufacturing and Assembly, Logistics Support Infrastructure, Configuration Management, and the Sustaining Engineering Functions to the Contractor AT the KEY Points During the Development and Implementation of the Program Currently Planned to Occur NO Later Than 90 Days After the Completion of the Following Major Milestones: Manufacturing and Assembly US Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Logistics Support Infrastructure US PDR Configuration Management US Critical Design Review CDR) Sustaining Engineering US Design Certification Review (DCR) After the Completion of an Orderly Transition of Roles and Responsibilities to the Contractor, Nasa Will Assume an Insight Role Into the Contractors Production, Sustaining Engineering, and Operations Support of the Ares I US Test Program and Flight Hardware. After DCR, the Contractor Will BE Responsible for Sustaining Engineering PER SOW Section 4.7, AS Necessary to Maintain and Support the US Configuration and for Production and Operations Support — $10.5B (THE Boeing Company)
- Space Program Operations Contract (spoc) — $8.5B (United Space Alliance, LLC)
- Joint Us/Russian Human Space Flight Activities — $4.7B (Russia Space Agency)
View all National Aeronautics and Space Administration contracts →