DoD's $21.4M Facilities Maintenance Contract Awarded to Pride Industries Amidst Limited Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,372,335 ($21.4M)

Contractor: Pride Industries

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-06-27

End Date: 2025-09-30

Contract Duration: 95 days

Daily Burn Rate: $225.0K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CLS 411, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE VERTICAL

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BLISS, EL PASO County, TEXAS, 79916

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.4 million to PRIDE INDUSTRIES for work described as: CLS 411, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE VERTICAL Key points: 1. Value appears reasonable given the scope of facilities maintenance services required. 2. Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced innovation. 3. Contract duration and fixed-price nature suggest moderate cost risk. 4. Performance context is critical to assess if services meet DoD standards. 5. This contract positions Pride Industries as a key provider in defense facilities management. 6. The award is a delivery order under a larger, unspecified contract vehicle.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this specific delivery order is challenging without knowing the parent contract's terms and the specific services rendered. However, the total award value of over $21 million for a 3-month period indicates a significant investment in facilities maintenance. Without comparable bids or detailed cost breakdowns, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The fixed-price contract type offers some cost certainty, but the absence of competition could lead to less favorable pricing than a fully competed scenario.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded on a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis, indicating a limited or sole-source procurement. This suggests that either only one source was capable of meeting the requirement, or the requirement was bundled in a way that restricted competition. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no direct price comparison through a bidding process, potentially impacting the government's ability to secure the most competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may be paying a premium due to the lack of competitive pressure, as the contractor faces less incentive to offer the lowest possible price.

Public Impact

The Department of Defense benefits from essential facilities maintenance services, ensuring operational readiness. Services include upkeep and maintenance of facilities, crucial for military infrastructure. The geographic impact is concentrated in Texas, supporting military installations in the state. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for maintenance staff managed by Pride Industries.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition may result in higher costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the procurement process hinders full value assessment.
Potential for contractor lock-in if this becomes a recurring sole-source award.

Positive Signals

Pride Industries is a known entity in facilities management, suggesting some level of established capability.
Fixed-price contract provides cost predictability for the government.
The award is for a relatively short duration, allowing for re-evaluation of competition in the future.

Sector Analysis

The facilities support services sector is a significant component of the broader professional, scientific, and technical services industry. This contract falls under NAICS code 561210, Facilities Support Services. The defense sector represents a substantial market for these services, with agencies like the Department of the Army requiring extensive maintenance for their vast infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to ascertain without more specific service details, but large-scale facilities maintenance contracts for government entities often run into tens or hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary consideration or requirement for this specific award. There is no indication of a small business set-aside. Consequently, the impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal for this particular contract, and there are no explicit subcontracting opportunities for small businesses mentioned.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award and the lack of detailed public information regarding the parent contract. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Facilities Maintenance
Army Base Operations Support
Government Facilities Management Contracts
Non-Competitive Contract Awards

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Lack of Transparency in Procurement
Potential for Overpricing

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.4 million to PRIDE INDUSTRIES. CLS 411, FACILITIES MAINTENANCE VERTICAL

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PRIDE INDUSTRIES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-06-27. End: 2025-09-30.

What is Pride Industries' track record with the Department of Defense and similar government contracts?

Pride Industries has a significant history of providing facilities management and maintenance services to various government agencies, including the Department of Defense. They are a large, established contractor in this space. While specific performance metrics for this particular delivery order are not publicly available, their extensive experience suggests a baseline capability. However, past performance on other contracts, especially those with different scopes or competition levels, would need to be reviewed to fully assess their suitability and value proposition for this specific requirement. Government contract databases and past performance reviews would offer more granular insights into their track record.

How does the pricing of this contract compare to similar facilities maintenance contracts awarded by the DoD?

Direct price comparison is difficult without knowing the precise scope of services, location-specific labor costs, and the duration of comparable contracts. However, the total award of over $21 million for a 95-day period (approximately $224,972 per day) suggests a substantial daily rate. Given the limited competition, it is plausible that the pricing is not as aggressive as it might be in a fully competed scenario. Benchmarking against other large-scale, non-competitive awards for similar services would be necessary for a more definitive assessment, but the absence of bids inherently limits downward price pressure.

What are the primary risks associated with this contract award?

The primary risks associated with this contract are related to the limited competition. This lack of a competitive bidding process increases the risk of the government not receiving the best possible price, potentially leading to cost inefficiencies for taxpayers. There's also a risk that the contractor may have less incentive to innovate or provide exceptional service when faced with minimal competitive pressure. Furthermore, if the parent contract vehicle itself has limitations or risks, those could cascade to this delivery order. The short duration mitigates some long-term risks, but the immediate concern is value for money.

How effective is the Department of the Army in ensuring value for money on non-competitively awarded contracts?

The Department of the Army employs various mechanisms to ensure value for money, even on non-competitively awarded contracts, though the effectiveness can vary. These mechanisms include detailed cost analysis, negotiation with the sole or limited source, and reliance on historical pricing data. However, the inherent limitation of non-competitive awards is the absence of direct price discovery through market forces. The effectiveness hinges on the diligence of the contracting officers in scrutinizing proposals, negotiating terms, and justifying the award. Robust internal oversight and justification requirements are crucial to mitigate the risks associated with limited competition.

What are the historical spending patterns for facilities maintenance services by the Department of the Army in Texas?

Historical spending patterns for facilities maintenance by the Department of the Army in Texas are substantial, reflecting the significant infrastructure footprint of military installations in the state. While specific aggregate data for 'facilities maintenance' across all Army installations in Texas for recent years is not readily available in this context, it is understood that such services are a consistent and significant expenditure category. These contracts often involve long-term commitments and can range from millions to tens of millions of dollars annually per installation or region, depending on the size and complexity of the facilities. This $21.4 million award for a 3-month period aligns with the expectation of significant, ongoing investment in maintaining these critical assets.

What is the significance of the 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' designation for this contract?

The 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' designation signifies that the contract was not awarded through a full and open competitive process. This typically occurs when only one responsible source is capable of providing the required supplies or services, or when a compelling justification exists for limiting competition (e.g., urgent need, follow-on work to a previous competitive award where only one contractor can perform). For taxpayers, this designation raises a flag because it bypasses the market's natural price discovery mechanism. While justified in certain circumstances, it necessitates heightened scrutiny by the procuring agency to ensure fair and reasonable pricing and to prevent potential overspending compared to what might be achieved through competition.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: W911RX19R0004

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10030 FOOTHILLS BLVD, ROSEVILLE, CA, 95747

Business Categories: AbilityOne Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,372,335

Exercised Options: $21,372,335

Current Obligation: $21,372,335

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W911RX20D0002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline