DoD's $11.4M contract with Choctaw Management Services Enterprise for services in Oklahoma awarded without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,444,954 ($11.4M)

Contractor: Choctaw Management Services Enterprise

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-01-05

End Date: 2005-10-01

Contract Duration: 269 days

Daily Burn Rate: $42.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: DURANT, BRYAN County, OKLAHOMA, 74701

State: Oklahoma Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.4 million to CHOCTAW MANAGEMENT SERVICES ENTERPRISE for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. The contract's duration of 269 days suggests a short-term need or a task order under a larger vehicle. 3. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the lack of competition may negate this benefit. 4. Awarded to a single entity, raising questions about the availability of other qualified contractors. 5. The contract's value of over $11 million warrants scrutiny regarding its necessity and efficiency. 6. Geographic focus on Oklahoma may indicate a localized service requirement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of publicly available comparable contract data for similar services awarded on a sole-source basis. The firm fixed-price structure is a positive indicator for cost control, but without competitive bidding, it's difficult to ascertain if the $11.4 million represents a fair market price. The absence of competition suggests potential overpayment or a lack of market exploration by the agency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under a sole-source justification, meaning it was not competed. The Department of the Army determined that only one responsible source was available or that the need was so specialized that it precluded full and open competition. This approach bypasses the standard competitive process, potentially limiting the number of bidders to one.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the best value for their money when contracts are awarded without competition, as the lack of bidding can lead to higher prices than might be achieved in a competitive environment.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is Choctaw Management Services Enterprise, a contractor providing services to the Department of Defense. The contract delivers unspecified services essential for the Department of the Army's operations in Oklahoma. The geographic impact is concentrated within Oklahoma, where the services are being rendered. Workforce implications include employment opportunities for individuals employed by Choctaw Management Services Enterprise.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and reduced value for taxpayer funds.
Sole-source awards can indicate a lack of market research or a failure to identify potential alternative sources.
The absence of a competitive process limits transparency and accountability in the procurement.

Positive Signals

The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the price was fair.
The contract is awarded to a specific entity, potentially fulfilling a critical and unique requirement.
The contract duration, though relatively short, suggests a defined scope of work.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad category of government services, likely supporting defense operations. The market for such services can be diverse, ranging from logistics and maintenance to specialized technical support. Without knowing the specific service, it's difficult to benchmark against industry standards, but government service contracts represent a significant portion of federal spending, often awarded through various procurement methods, including sole-source when justified.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not available for this contract. As a sole-source award, it is less likely to have been specifically set aside for small businesses unless the sole source itself is a small business. The absence of this information prevents an assessment of its impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer and the Department of the Army's program management. Accountability is established through contract terms and performance monitoring. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award and the lack of detailed public information. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Services Contracts
Army Support Contracts
Sole-Source Procurements
Oklahoma Federal Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for overpricing
Limited transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.4 million to CHOCTAW MANAGEMENT SERVICES ENTERPRISE. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CHOCTAW MANAGEMENT SERVICES ENTERPRISE.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-01-05. End: 2005-10-01.

What specific services were provided under this contract?

The specific services provided under this contract are not detailed in the provided data. The contract is listed as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' and awarded to Choctaw Management Services Enterprise by the Department of the Army. Typically, such contracts could encompass a wide range of support functions, including but not limited to logistics, base operations support, maintenance, IT services, or specialized technical assistance. Without further information or access to the contract's statement of work, the exact nature of the services remains unknown.

Why was this contract awarded on a sole-source basis?

The data indicates the contract was awarded on a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis, which is synonymous with a sole-source award. The specific justification for this sole-source award is not provided. Common reasons for sole-source awards include unique capabilities of the contractor, urgent and compelling needs where competition is not feasible, or when only one responsible source exists for a particular good or service. The Department of the Army would have had to document and approve this justification according to federal acquisition regulations.

What is the track record of Choctaw Management Services Enterprise with the federal government?

Choctaw Management Services Enterprise (CMSE) has a history of receiving federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense. While this specific contract was awarded in 2005, CMSE has been awarded numerous other contracts across various agencies and for different types of services over the years. A comprehensive review of their track record would involve analyzing contract performance data, any past performance evaluations, and any instances of contract disputes or terminations. The fact that they have secured multiple contracts suggests a level of established capability and government trust, though each contract should be evaluated on its own merits.

How does the $11.4 million value compare to similar contracts?

Direct comparison of the $11.4 million value is difficult without knowing the specific services rendered and the contract's duration and scope. However, given that this was a sole-source award for a period of approximately 269 days (from January 5, 2005, to October 1, 2005), the per-diem cost is substantial. In the absence of competitive bids, it is challenging to determine if this represents a fair market price. Government agencies are expected to conduct market research to ensure fair and reasonable pricing, even for sole-source awards, but the lack of competition inherently limits the ability to benchmark against market rates effectively.

What are the potential risks associated with this sole-source contract?

The primary risk associated with this sole-source contract is the potential for inflated pricing due to the lack of competition. Without multiple bids, the government may not achieve the most cost-effective solution. Another risk is the potential for reduced innovation or service quality, as the contractor may face less pressure to excel compared to a competitive environment. Furthermore, sole-source awards can raise concerns about fairness and equal opportunity for other potential contractors, and may indicate a lack of thorough market research by the awarding agency.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar services by the Department of the Army?

Historical spending patterns for similar services by the Department of the Army are highly variable and depend heavily on the specific nature of the services. The Army procures a vast array of services, from base support and logistics to specialized technical and professional services. Without knowing the precise services this $11.4 million contract covered, it's impossible to provide a specific spending benchmark. However, the Army consistently spends billions of dollars annually on contracted services, with significant portions allocated to areas like facilities maintenance, IT support, and personnel services. Sole-source awards, while less common than competed contracts, are part of this overall spending.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2101 W ARKANSAS, DURANT, OK, 74701

Business Categories: Category Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W81K0404D0009

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline