Choctaw Management Services Enterprise awarded $11.4M contract by Department of Defense for unspecified services

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,416,685 ($11.4M)

Contractor: Choctaw Management Services Enterprise

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-12-09

End Date: 2006-09-30

Contract Duration: 295 days

Daily Burn Rate: $38.7K/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, 74702

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 potential cost savings from competition. 2. The contract duration of 295 days is relatively short, suggesting a focused scope of work. 3. Awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a focus on military operational support. 4. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to control costs, but the lack of competition may inflate the price. 5. Performance is based in Oklahoma, potentially benefiting the local economy. 6. No specific service details are available, making a precise value assessment difficult.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without detailed service descriptions or comparable contract data, it is challenging to definitively assess the value for money. The $11.4 million award for a less than one-year contract suggests a significant per-day cost. The lack of competition is a primary concern for price discovery and ensuring the government receives the best possible value. Benchmarking against similar sole-source contracts for management services would be necessary for a more robust assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded under 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' indicating a sole-source procurement. This means that the Department of the Army did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. Reasons for sole-source awards can include unique capabilities, urgent needs, or specific circumstances that preclude full and open competition. The absence of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to achieve the lowest possible price.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition means taxpayers may have paid a higher price than if multiple vendors had competed for the contract. Without competitive pressure, the awarded price might not reflect the most cost-effective solution available in the market.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is likely Choctaw Management Services Enterprise, a contractor based in Oklahoma. The services delivered are unspecified but are procured by the Department of the Army. The geographic impact is concentrated in Oklahoma, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications are not detailed but may involve employment opportunities within the contractor's organization in Oklahoma.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the specific services procured.
Sole-source award raises concerns about potential overpricing due to absence of competition.
Limited data available to assess contractor performance or the effectiveness of the services.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type helps to establish a ceiling on costs.
Awarded to a specific entity, potentially indicating a pre-existing relationship or specialized need.
Contract performance is located within the United States.

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls under general management and administrative services, a broad category within the federal contracting landscape. The Department of Defense frequently procures such services to support its vast operational and administrative needs. The market for these services is competitive, but sole-source awards bypass this competition. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without knowing the specific nature of the management services provided.

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. The impact on the small business ecosystem is therefore minimal unless Choctaw Management Services Enterprise engages small businesses as subcontractors, which is not indicated.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract are not detailed in the provided data. As a Department of the Army contract, it would typically fall under the purview of the Army's contracting officer and potentially the Department of Defense Inspector General. Transparency is limited due to the lack of public information on the specific services and performance metrics.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Management Services Contracts
Army Operational Support Contracts
Sole-Source Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of service detail
Potential for overpricing

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: 2005-12-09. End: 2006-09-30.

What specific management services were procured under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact management services procured under this $11.4 million contract awarded to Choctaw Management Services Enterprise by the Department of the Army. The contract type is listed as 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' and the primary category is general management services. Without this crucial detail, it is impossible to assess the necessity, scope, or effectiveness of the services rendered. Further investigation into the contract's statement of work or associated documentation would be required to ascertain the specific nature of the services provided.

How does the per-day cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar services?

The contract was awarded for $11,416,685.25 and had a duration of 295 days. This results in a daily cost of approximately $38,701. Without knowing the specific services provided, a direct comparison to industry benchmarks is challenging. However, for general management and administrative support services, this daily rate appears substantial. Typical benchmarks for such services can vary widely based on complexity, required expertise, and location. A more accurate assessment would require detailed information on the services rendered and comparison with similar sole-source or competitively awarded contracts within the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award of this magnitude ($11.4 million) is the potential for inflated pricing due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without competing offers, the government may not achieve the most cost-effective solution. Other risks include a lack of innovation that might arise from competition, and potential difficulties in performance management if the contractor is not accustomed to competitive pressures. Furthermore, sole-source awards can sometimes indicate a lack of market research or planning, although there can be legitimate reasons for such awards, such as unique capabilities or urgent needs.

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

The provided data indicates that Choctaw Management Services Enterprise was awarded this specific contract by the Department of the Army. However, it does not offer details about their broader track record with federal contracts, such as past performance ratings, other contract awards, or any history of performance issues. To assess their track record, one would need to consult federal procurement databases like SAM.gov or FPDS-NG for a comprehensive view of their contract history, including award amounts, agencies served, and performance evaluations.

How does this contract fit within the Department of the Army's overall spending on management services?

This contract represents a $11.4 million expenditure for management services by the Department of the Army. To understand its place within the Army's overall spending, one would need to analyze historical and current spending data for management and administrative support services across the entire department. This single contract's value needs to be contextualized against the billions of dollars the Army spends annually on a wide array of services. Without broader spending data, it's difficult to determine if this contract is a significant outlier, a routine procurement, or part of a larger strategic initiative.

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, 02

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

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W81K0404D0009

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline