DoD's $30M Contract with Coggins International Corp for IT Services Raises Questions on Value and Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $30,077,604 ($30.1M)

Contractor: Coggins International Corp

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-03-30

End Date: 2018-06-01

Contract Duration: 1,159 days

Daily Burn Rate: $26.0K/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, FULTON County, GEORGIA, 30305

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $30.1 million to COGGINS INTERNATIONAL CORP for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Coggins International Corp for $30.08M represents a significant expenditure in IT services. 2. Competition appears limited, as the award was made under SAP (Small Business Administration Procurement) and was a BPA Call. 3. Potential risks include a lack of robust price discovery due to limited competition and the contract's duration. 4. The IT services sector is broad, making direct comparison difficult without more specific service details.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's total value of $30.08M over 1159 days suggests a substantial investment. Without specific service details and comparable contract data, assessing value for money is difficult. The benchmark of $25,951 for 'other computer related services' seems low compared to the overall contract value, potentially indicating a higher-value service or a less competitive pricing structure.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was competed under SAP and awarded via a BPA Call, indicating a limited competition environment. This method may not have yielded the most competitive pricing, as fewer vendors were likely involved. The 'COMPETED UNDER SAP' designation suggests it was set aside for small businesses, but the specific award mechanism limits broad market engagement.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited competition and potential for non-optimal pricing could mean taxpayers are not receiving the best possible value for the $30.08M spent on these IT services.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for IT services due to a lack of robust competition. The Department of Defense's reliance on limited competition for significant IT contracts warrants further scrutiny. Small businesses may benefit from set-aside contracts, but the overall efficiency of spending needs evaluation.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition
Lack of clear value for money assessment
Long contract duration
Potential for overpayment

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to a specific company
Utilized a BPA Call mechanism

Sector Analysis

The IT services sector is highly dynamic, with costs varying significantly based on the specific services provided (e.g., software development, cloud computing, cybersecurity). A $30M contract over nearly three years suggests a substantial, ongoing need. Benchmarking requires detailed service descriptions to compare against similar government or commercial contracts.

Small Business Impact

The contract was competed under SAP, suggesting a set-aside for small businesses. While this supports small business participation, the specific award mechanism (BPA Call) and the overall value raise questions about whether the most competitive pricing was achieved within the small business pool.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight is crucial for contracts of this magnitude, especially those with limited competition. The Defense Logistics Agency should ensure robust monitoring of performance and costs to confirm value for money and adherence to contract terms. Further review of the procurement process is recommended.

Related Government Programs

Other Computer Related Services
Department of Defense Contracting
Defense Logistics Agency Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for inflated costs due to limited competition.
Lack of transparency in service details and pricing.
Risk of vendor lock-in or reduced innovation.
Insufficient justification for sole-source or limited competition.
Questionable value for money given the contract structure.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $30.1 million to COGGINS INTERNATIONAL CORP. IGF::OT::IGF

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COGGINS INTERNATIONAL CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Logistics Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $30.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-03-30. End: 2018-06-01.

What specific IT services were procured under this $30M contract, and how do their costs compare to market rates for similar services?

The contract falls under NAICS code 541519 (Other Computer Related Services). However, without a detailed statement of work, it's impossible to ascertain the specific services. The benchmark of $25,951 provided seems low relative to the total contract value, suggesting either a very specific, high-value niche service or a pricing structure that warrants closer examination against industry standards for comparable IT solutions.

What were the justifications for limiting competition under SAP for this significant contract, and did this limit price discovery?

Limiting competition under SAP typically involves justifications like set-asides for small businesses or specific socio-economic categories. For a $30M contract, the justification for limited competition needs rigorous review to ensure it served a valid purpose and didn't preclude potentially better pricing from a wider pool of vendors. The BPA Call mechanism further narrows the field, potentially impacting price discovery.

How effectively did the Defense Logistics Agency manage this contract to ensure optimal value and performance over its 1159-day duration?

Effective contract management involves continuous monitoring of performance metrics, cost controls, and vendor compliance. For a contract of this size and duration, regular performance reviews and cost analyses are essential. The lack of detailed performance data makes it difficult to assess effectiveness, but the limited competition raises concerns about whether the agency secured the best possible outcomes.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Other Computer Related Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3280 PEACHTREE RD NE STE 1110, ATLANTA, GA, 30305

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $30,077,604

Exercised Options: $30,077,604

Current Obligation: $30,077,604

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: SP470111A0161

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline