State Department awards $62M for overseas security guards, a contract that was not competed

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $62,031,359 ($62.0M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2011-08-08

End Date: 2012-08-09

Contract Duration: 367 days

Daily Burn Rate: $169.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $62.0 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. The contract's value of $62 million raises questions about cost-effectiveness given the lack of competition. 2. The 'NOT COMPETED' status suggests potential missed opportunities for better pricing and innovative solutions. 3. Security Guards and Patrol Services (NAICS 561612) is a critical but potentially commoditized service where competition usually drives down costs. 4. The contract duration of 367 days (over one year) indicates a significant, ongoing need for these services. 5. The award type is a 'DEFINITIVE CONTRACT', suggesting a firm commitment for the specified period. 6. The absence of disclosed domestic awardees is unusual and hinders transparency in assessing contractor suitability and pricing.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $62 million contract is difficult without knowing the specific locations, scope of services, and number of personnel required. However, the lack of competition is a significant red flag. Typically, for services like security guards, a competitive bidding process would yield multiple proposals, allowing the agency to compare pricing and select the most cost-effective option. Without this, it's hard to ascertain if the government received fair market value. The 'NOT COMPETED' designation suggests that either only one source was available or a justification for other-than-full-and-open competition was invoked, which warrants scrutiny.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was explicitly marked as 'NOT COMPETED', indicating a sole-source or limited competition award. The data does not provide the justification for this determination. Typically, sole-source awards occur when only one responsible source can provide the required services, or in cases of urgent need. The lack of competition means that the Department of State did not solicit bids from multiple vendors, potentially limiting price discovery and the opportunity to leverage market competition to secure the best possible terms and pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for these security services due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without competing the contract, the government cannot be certain it obtained the most economical price for the required security.

Public Impact

Provides essential security services for U.S. personnel and interests at overseas locations. Ensures the safety and operational continuity of diplomatic missions or other government facilities abroad. Supports the Department of State's mission to protect U.S. citizens and interests internationally. Likely involves the employment of security personnel, potentially including local nationals and U.S. citizens, contributing to employment in those regions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and missed opportunities for cost savings.
The 'NOT COMPETED' status requires a strong justification to ensure taxpayer funds are used efficiently.
Absence of disclosed domestic awardees hinders transparency and the ability to assess contractor qualifications and pricing.
The 'TIME AND MATERIALS' contract type can sometimes lead to higher costs if not closely managed and monitored for scope creep.

Positive Signals

The contract addresses a critical need for security in potentially high-risk overseas environments.
The Department of State is fulfilling its mandate to protect personnel and assets abroad.
The definitive contract structure provides a clear commitment for essential services.

Sector Analysis

The security services industry is vast, encompassing a wide range of protective measures. This contract falls under the Security Guards and Patrol Services category (NAICS 561612). The global security market is substantial, driven by geopolitical factors, corporate needs, and government requirements for protecting assets and personnel, especially in volatile regions. Government contracts for security services are common across various agencies operating internationally. Benchmarking this specific award is challenging without more detail, but large-scale overseas security contracts can range from tens to hundreds of millions of dollars depending on the scope and duration.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a factor in this award (sb: false). There is no information provided regarding subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. Given the 'NOT COMPETED' nature and the lack of specific set-aside information, it is unlikely that small businesses were specifically targeted or benefited from this particular contract.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of State's contracting officers and program managers. The 'NOT COMPETED' status suggests that a justification for other-than-full-and-open competition was likely required and approved, which should be documented and available for review. Transparency is limited by the lack of disclosed awardee information and the non-competitive nature. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of State Overseas Security Operations
Department of Defense Security Contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule Contracts for Security Services
Department of Homeland Security Protective Services

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Lack of Transparency (Undisclosed Awardee)
Potential for Overpricing (T&M, Sole Source)
Limited Oversight Visibility

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $62.0 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $62.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2011-08-08. End: 2012-08-09.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED' but does not include the specific justification. Typically, justifications for other-than-full-and-open competition include reasons such as: only one responsible source exists, an urgent and compelling need, or a treaty/international agreement restriction. Without the official justification document, it is impossible to verify the validity of the sole-source award. This lack of transparency prevents a thorough assessment of whether competitive bidding was genuinely infeasible or if it was simply bypassed.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar security contracts awarded competitively by the Department of State or other agencies?

Direct comparison is challenging due to the 'NOT COMPETED' status and the lack of specific service details (e.g., number of guards, hours, specific security measures, locations). However, contracts awarded through full and open competition often result in lower prices due to market forces. If this contract's per-unit costs (e.g., per guard hour, per post) are higher than benchmarks from similar, competitively awarded contracts, it would suggest potential overpayment. The absence of competitive bids means there's no baseline market price established through this specific procurement.

What are the risks associated with using a 'TIME AND MATERIALS' contract type for security services, especially when not competed?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts can pose risks, particularly when not competed. They allow the contractor to bill for direct labor hours at specified rates and for the actual cost of materials, plus a fee or fixed overhead. The primary risk is cost overrun, as the total cost is not fixed upfront. Without robust oversight and a clear definition of 'materials,' contractors may have less incentive to control costs. When combined with a non-competitive award, the government has less leverage to ensure efficiency and cost-effectiveness, potentially leading to higher overall spending compared to a fixed-price contract awarded competitively.

What specific security services are covered under this $62 million contract?

The contract is categorized under NAICS code 561612 (Security Guards and Patrol Services). This typically includes providing on-site security personnel to protect property, prevent theft and unauthorized access, and maintain order. However, the exact scope for this $62 million award is not detailed in the provided data. It could range from basic guard services at embassies or consulates to more specialized protective details or monitoring services across multiple overseas locations. The lack of specificity hinders a precise understanding of the value delivered.

What is the track record of the undisclosed domestic awardee in providing similar overseas security services?

The provided data lists 'DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED)', meaning the identity of the contractor is not specified. Consequently, assessing the contractor's track record, past performance, financial stability, and experience in delivering overseas security services is impossible. This lack of transparency is a significant concern for accountability and risk management. A known contractor's history would typically be reviewed during a competitive process or be publicly available for sole-source awards, allowing for due diligence.

How does the duration of this contract (367 days) align with typical security service needs for overseas posts?

A contract duration of 367 days, essentially one year, is a common term for service contracts, including security. It allows for a stable provision of services over a defined period. For overseas security, which is often a continuous requirement due to persistent risks, a one-year term is standard. This duration suggests a recognized, ongoing need by the Department of State. However, the length also underscores the importance of ensuring cost-effectiveness and performance quality throughout the period, especially given the non-competitive nature of the award.

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: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $62,031,359

Exercised Options: $62,031,359

Current Obligation: $62,031,359

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline