Transportation Department awards $10.9M contract to THE COLLABORATIVE INC for services spanning a decade

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,902,105 ($10.9M)

Contractor: THE Collaborative Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 1998-10-15

End Date: 2008-09-10

Contract Duration: 3,618 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: BOSTON, SUFFOLK County, MASSACHUSETTS, 02210

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $10.9 million to THE COLLABORATIVE INC for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value of $10.9M over 10 years suggests a sustained need for services. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating a broad market search. 3. A Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure introduces performance incentives but can lead to cost overruns if not managed tightly. 4. The contract duration of over 10 years is substantial, implying long-term strategic importance. 5. The award to THE COLLABORATIVE INC suggests a strong performance record or unique capabilities. 6. The contract's significant duration and value warrant close monitoring for performance and cost efficiency.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $10.9 million spread over approximately 10 years averages to about $1.09 million per year. Without specific details on the services rendered, direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) pricing structure can sometimes lead to higher costs than fixed-price contracts if performance targets are aggressively pursued or if the base fee is substantial. Benchmarking the value requires understanding the scope and deliverables against industry standards for similar consulting or support services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION,' indicating that the Department of Transportation sought proposals from all responsible sources. The presence of 2 bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this contract. While full and open competition is generally preferred for maximizing value, a low number of bids could indicate market limitations, high barriers to entry, or a highly specialized service requirement.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive bidding process, even with a limited number of bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging more favorable pricing and service terms compared to non-competitive awards.

Public Impact

The Department of Transportation benefits from sustained support for its immediate office, likely enhancing operational efficiency and strategic planning. Services delivered are expected to support the core functions and administrative needs of the Secretary's office. The geographic impact is primarily national, given the scope of the Department of Transportation's mission, though specific project locations may vary. Workforce implications could include direct employment by THE COLLABORATIVE INC and potential indirect impacts on DOT staff collaborating on projects.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contracts can incentivize performance but also carry a risk of escalating costs if award criteria are not strictly managed.
A 10-year contract duration, while indicating long-term need, also presents a risk of service obsolescence or changing requirements over time.
The limited number of bids (2) in a full and open competition might suggest potential market concentration or high entry barriers for this specific service area.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a fair opportunity for multiple vendors to compete.
The contract spans a significant period, indicating a stable and predictable need for the services provided.
The use of an award fee mechanism suggests a focus on achieving specific performance outcomes.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, likely supporting government administration and operations. The market for such services is vast, encompassing consulting, program management, and technical support. The Department of Transportation's spending in this area is typical for large federal agencies requiring specialized expertise to manage complex operations and policy initiatives. Benchmarking requires comparing the annual value of approximately $1.09 million to similar support contracts within the federal government for administrative and strategic consulting services.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract was specifically set aside for small businesses. Given the contract's duration and value, it is unlikely that significant subcontracting opportunities for small businesses would be mandated unless specified within the contract's performance requirements. The primary contractor, THE COLLABORATIVE INC, would need to be assessed for its own small business utilization plan if applicable.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside within the Department of Transportation's contracting and program management offices. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure necessitates robust performance monitoring to ensure that award fees are justified. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases like FPDS, though specific performance metrics and evaluations may not be publicly detailed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Transportation Administrative Support Services
Federal Consulting Services
Cost Plus Award Fee Contracts
Long-Term Government Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure.
Risk of service obsolescence over the 10-year duration.
Limited competition may impact price discovery.
Need for strong performance monitoring for award fee justification.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $10.9 million to THE COLLABORATIVE INC. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is THE COLLABORATIVE INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Immediate Office of the Secretary of Transportation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 1998-10-15. End: 2008-09-10.

What specific services were provided under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact services rendered under this contract. However, given the awarding agency (Department of Transportation) and the contracting office (Immediate Office of the Secretary of Transportation), the services likely pertained to administrative support, strategic planning, policy analysis, program management, or consulting related to the agency's mission. The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure suggests that the services involved performance-based objectives where the contractor could earn additional fees based on meeting or exceeding specific metrics. Further details would require accessing the contract's statement of work.

How does the $10.9 million total contract value compare to similar contracts for administrative support within the Department of Transportation?

Comparing the $10.9 million total contract value, spread over approximately 10 years (from 1998 to 2008), requires context on the specific services and the agency's needs during that period. The average annual value is roughly $1.09 million. Without knowing the precise scope, it's difficult to make a direct comparison. However, for large federal agencies like the DOT, multi-million dollar contracts for essential administrative, strategic, or program support are common. The key is whether the value aligns with the complexity and criticality of the services delivered, and whether competitive bidding yielded favorable rates relative to market benchmarks for similar expertise.

What are the potential risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract structure over a 10-year period?

The primary risk with a CPAF contract is cost escalation. While the 'award fee' component incentivizes performance, the 'cost plus' element means the government pays the contractor's allowable costs plus a fee that can be adjusted based on performance. If the base fee is high or the award criteria are not stringent, costs can exceed projections. Over a 10-year period, there's also a risk that the services become outdated, the contractor's performance may decline, or the agency's needs may evolve significantly, making the contract less efficient or effective than initially intended. Robust oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial to mitigate these risks.

What does the limited number of bids (2) in a full and open competition imply about the market for these services?

A limited number of bids (2) in a 'full and open competition' scenario can suggest several possibilities regarding the market for these services. It might indicate that the required expertise is highly specialized, and only a few companies possess the necessary qualifications and capacity. Alternatively, it could point to high barriers to entry, such as significant pre-qualification requirements, complex proposal processes, or substantial upfront investment needed by potential bidders. In some cases, it might also suggest that the contract's value or terms were not sufficiently attractive to a broader range of competitors. This limited competition could potentially impact price negotiation and the government's leverage.

How has federal spending on similar administrative support contracts evolved since this contract was awarded in 1998?

Federal spending on administrative support contracts has generally increased significantly since 1998, driven by factors such as agency growth, increased outsourcing of non-core functions, and the complexity of government operations. Technology advancements have also shifted the nature of support services, with greater emphasis on IT integration, data analytics, and cybersecurity. While this specific contract ended in 2008, the trend indicates a continued reliance on contractors for various support functions. However, there has also been increased scrutiny on contract costs and performance, leading to more sophisticated performance metrics and oversight mechanisms in recent years.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Address: 273 SUMMER ST, BOSTON, MA, 02210

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $10,902,105

Exercised Options: $10,902,105

Current Obligation: $10,902,105

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline