DoD's $31.2M Facilities Support Contract for USAG Stuttgart Raises Value Questions Amidst Limited Benchmarking Data

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $31,252,784 ($31.3M)

Contractor: Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2024-01-01

End Date: 2024-12-31

Contract Duration: 365 days

Daily Burn Rate: $85.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERARCHING USAG STUTTGART BASOPS SERVICES

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $31.3 million to CENTERRA INTEGRATED FACILITIES SERVICES, LLC for work described as: OVERARCHING USAG STUTTGART BASOPS SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract's value-for-money is difficult to assess due to a lack of detailed performance metrics and comparable contract data. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a full and open process, suggesting potential for competitive pricing, but specific bid data is unavailable. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, primarily related to the potential for cost overruns in time-and-materials contracts if not closely managed. 4. Performance context is limited to the provision of facilities support services, with no specific outcome-based metrics provided. 5. Sector positioning places this contract within the broader facilities management and base operations support for defense installations. 6. The contract's duration of one year with a total value of $31.25M suggests a significant but potentially variable annual spend. 7. The use of a BPA Call indicates a pre-negotiated framework, potentially streamlining procurement but requiring careful oversight of individual calls.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this $31.25M facilities support contract is challenging without access to detailed cost breakdowns or performance metrics. While the contract was awarded under full and open competition, the specific pricing structure and comparison to similar base operations support contracts are not publicly detailed. The time-and-materials pricing model introduces inherent risk for cost control, necessitating robust oversight to ensure value for money. Without more granular data, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing is competitive or if the services delivered align with optimal value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under a full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The specific number of bidders is not provided, which limits the ability to fully assess the intensity of the competition. However, a full and open process generally fosters price discovery and encourages contractors to offer competitive terms. The use of a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call suggests that a broader contract vehicle was already in place, and this specific call was then competed.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition is generally favorable for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining competitive pricing and better value for services rendered. It ensures that the government explores a wide range of potential providers, driving down costs through market forces.

Public Impact

Service members and civilian personnel stationed at USAG Stuttgart benefit from the maintenance and operation of their facilities. Essential services such as facility maintenance, repair, and potentially groundskeeping are delivered to ensure operational readiness. The geographic impact is localized to the USAG Stuttgart installation in Germany, supporting U.S. Army operations abroad. Workforce implications include the potential employment of a significant number of personnel, both directly by the contractor and indirectly through subcontractors, to perform the required services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for cost creep in Time and Materials (T&M) contracts if not rigorously monitored.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess efficiency and effectiveness.
Reliance on a BPA Call could obscure the specific competitive dynamics of this particular service requirement.
Geographic location in Germany may introduce complexities in oversight and contract management.
Limited public data on contractor performance history for similar large-scale base operations contracts.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process.
Contractor is Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC, which likely has experience in this service area.
BPA Call mechanism can streamline procurement for recurring needs.
Clear contract period (one year) allows for periodic re-evaluation of needs and performance.
Services are essential for the functioning of a major military installation.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Facilities Support Services sector, a critical component of base operations and infrastructure management for government installations. This market is characterized by large, complex contracts often awarded to specialized service providers. Spending in this sector is substantial across various government agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, which relies heavily on these services to maintain readiness and quality of life for personnel. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more specific service details and geographic cost-of-living adjustments.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). As a large-scale facilities support services contract, it is unlikely that significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would be mandated unless specified within the BPA or the individual call's terms. The primary focus appears to be on securing comprehensive services from a capable prime contractor, rather than specifically fostering small business participation through set-asides.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the contracting officer and the contracting officer's representative (COR) within the Department of the Army, responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Given the international location (Germany), additional oversight layers may exist within the U.S. European Command or specific installation commands. Transparency is limited by the public availability of detailed performance reports or cost audits. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Base Operations Support (BOS)
Facilities Maintenance and Repair
Logistics and Support Services
Defense Infrastructure Management
Government Contracting Vehicles (BPA)

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials pricing.
Lack of detailed performance metrics hinders value assessment.
Limited public data on specific service scope and contractor performance.
Overseas contract management complexities.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $31.3 million to CENTERRA INTEGRATED FACILITIES SERVICES, LLC. OVERARCHING USAG STUTTGART BASOPS SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CENTERRA INTEGRATED FACILITIES SERVICES, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $31.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2024-01-01. End: 2024-12-31.

What is the track record of Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC in managing large-scale base operations support contracts for the Department of Defense, particularly in overseas locations?

Centerra Integrated Facilities Services, LLC has a significant history of providing base operations and facilities support services to the U.S. military, including extensive experience in overseas environments. They have held numerous large contracts for services such as facility maintenance, logistics, security, and emergency response at various installations. While specific performance details for each contract are not always publicly available, their continued success in winning and executing such contracts suggests a generally positive track record. However, a deeper dive into past performance reviews, any documented disputes, or contract terminations would be necessary for a comprehensive assessment. Their experience likely includes navigating the complexities of international contracting, including local labor laws and regulations.

How does the $31.25M annual spending compare to similar facilities support contracts at other U.S. Army installations of comparable size and scope?

Direct comparison of the $31.25M annual spending for USAG Stuttgart's facilities support services to similar contracts at other installations is challenging without standardized reporting metrics and detailed service scopes. Factors such as geographic location (cost of labor and materials), specific services included (e.g., scope of maintenance, housing, IT infrastructure), and the overall size and mission of the installation significantly influence contract values. Generally, large overseas installations with extensive infrastructure and diverse operational needs tend to have higher support service contract costs. While $31.25M represents a substantial investment, it may be within the expected range for a major European-based Army garrison, but a definitive benchmark requires a more granular analysis of comparable contracts.

What are the primary risks associated with the 'Time and Materials' (T&M) contract type used for this service, and what mitigation strategies are in place?

The primary risk with Time and Materials (T&M) contracts is the potential for cost overruns, as the contractor is reimbursed for direct labor hours at specified rates and for the cost of materials used, plus a fee or fixed overhead. This structure can incentivize longer task durations or less efficient work if not tightly managed. Mitigation strategies typically include establishing not-to-exceed (NTE) limits for labor hours or total contract value, requiring detailed timesheets and material receipts, implementing robust surveillance by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) to monitor work efficiency, and potentially incorporating fixed-price components for specific, well-defined tasks. Regular performance reviews and audits are crucial to ensure the government receives fair value and controls costs effectively.

What specific facilities support services are included under this $31.25M contract, and how is their delivery measured?

The provided data categorizes the contract under NAICS code 561210 (Facilities Support Services), indicating a broad range of potential services. These typically encompass operations and maintenance of buildings and grounds, utilities management, waste management, pest control, transportation services, and potentially fire and emergency services. However, the specific breakdown of services included in this $31.25M contract is not detailed. Similarly, the metrics for measuring service delivery are not specified. Effective contracts of this nature usually include a Performance Work Statement (PWS) with measurable performance standards (e.g., response times for work orders, uptime for critical systems, customer satisfaction ratings) and associated award-fee or incentive structures.

What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at USAG Stuttgart over the past five years?

Historical spending data for facilities support services at USAG Stuttgart over the past five years is not directly available from the provided summary data. This contract, valued at $31.25M, is for the period of January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024. To determine historical trends, one would need to access historical contract databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) and search for previous contracts awarded for similar services at USAG Stuttgart, noting their values, durations, and award types. Analyzing these past awards would reveal whether spending has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing, and whether the contractor or contract type has changed significantly over time.

How does the use of a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) Call impact the transparency and competition for this specific service requirement?

A Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) is a simplified way to fill anticipated repetitive needs for supplies or services. A BPA Call is an order placed against an existing BPA. While BPAs themselves are often established through competition, individual calls placed against them can vary in their competitive nature. In this case, the contract states 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION' for the BPA Call, suggesting that this specific order was competed openly. However, the underlying BPA might have been established with fewer competitors or through a different mechanism. The transparency of a BPA Call can sometimes be less than a standalone contract, as the initial BPA establishment details might not be as readily accessible. Nonetheless, the explicit mention of full and open competition for this call is a positive indicator for price discovery and taxpayer value.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: MAINT, REPAIR, ALTER REAL PROPERTY › MAINT, ALTER, REPAIR NONBUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 13530 DULLES TECHNOLOGY DR SUITE 500,, HERNDON, VA, 20171

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $31,252,784

Exercised Options: $31,252,784

Current Obligation: $31,252,784

Actual Outlays: $7,060,377

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91WFU21A0001

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline