Naval Base Guam hosted a diving exercise to enhance cooperation, interoperability, and tactical proficiency in diving operations in support of disaster response. U.S. Navy
A new company, Fluor Federal Solutions LLC, has won the contract to provide base operating support services to the Navy on Guam, according to the military’s contracting website.
It will be the third company to hold the contract on Guam since the Navy first started employing a civilian contractor to handle base operations. Raytheon held the Guam Navy contract from early 2000 to 2005. DZSP 21 took over in 2005.
The new contract to the South Carolina-based company is worth a maximum of $494,519,656 for services to be provided through the end of September 2025, according to the military.
The awarding of the contract to a private company was an effort by the military to save money through the A-76 privatization process, in which the military identifies services that can be performed more cost-effectively by a private company or by a trimmer civil-service work force. The military used the BOS concept, in which several base support services are awarded to a single Fortune 500 contractor, for the first time on Guam.
The selection of Raytheon resulted in the elimination of about 1,200 Navy civil service positions at the base in the year 2000, but the company hired about 1,000 people, with civil service workers receiving a preference in hiring.
“This contract action is a re-award as a result of corrective action taken due to Government Accountability Office protest,” the military stated about the new Fluor contract.
The military in September 2016 announced DSZP 21 had been given the Guam contract, also stating the contract was awarded as a result of corrective action related to a GAO protest.
GAO documents state Fluor argued that it had been unfairly influenced to add more job positions to its contract proposal — effectively pricing itself out of competition. DZSP had underbid Fluor by more than $30 million.
According to Fluor’s argument, the government did not meaningfully evaluate Fluor’s proposed staffing levels, and instead “mechanically applied a government estimate” to conclude whether Fluor had enough staffing. The government failed to take into account Fluor’s different technical approaches to complete the work, it argued.
The GAO agreed with Fluor’s argument, documents state.