DoD's $21.2M advertising contract with Wunderman Thompson LLC awarded under full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,200,941 ($21.2M)

Contractor: Wunderman Thompson LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2012-01-18

End Date: 2012-11-30

Contract Duration: 317 days

Daily Burn Rate: $66.9K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MCRC ADV SERVICES - ODC

Place of Performance

Location: QUANTICO, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 22134

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $21.2 million to WUNDERMAN THOMPSON LLC for work described as: MCRC ADV SERVICES - ODC Key points: 1. Contract awarded for advertising services, indicating a need for marketing and outreach support. 2. The contract was competed fully and openly, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The duration of the contract was approximately 10 months. 4. The contract was awarded to a single vendor, Wunderman Thompson LLC. 5. The contract type was 'Cost No Fee', which requires careful monitoring of costs. 6. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Navy, a component of the DoD.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's value of $21.2 million for a 10-month period for advertising services appears to be within a reasonable range for large-scale government marketing campaigns. However, without specific deliverables or performance metrics, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. Benchmarking against similar large-scale advertising contracts for federal agencies would provide further context on pricing efficiency. The 'Cost No Fee' award type necessitates close scrutiny of the contractor's cost proposals and actual expenditures to ensure reasonableness.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. This approach generally fosters a competitive environment, potentially leading to better pricing and service quality. The fact that it was competed openly suggests that the Department of the Navy sought to maximize competition to achieve the best value for the government. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open competition itself is a positive indicator for price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it increases the likelihood of obtaining services at competitive prices, preventing potential overspending that could occur with less competitive award methods.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and the Department of Defense, receiving advertising and marketing services. The services delivered include advertising campaigns, likely aimed at recruitment, public awareness, or specific messaging. The geographic impact is likely national, given the scope of DoD advertising, though specific campaign targets may vary. Workforce implications could include support roles within the contractor's organization and potential indirect impacts on military recruitment or public perception.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'Cost No Fee' contract type requires robust oversight to ensure costs are reasonable and necessary.
Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the advertising spend.
The significant dollar amount necessitates careful financial management and auditing.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process that should yield fair pricing.
The contract is with a known entity (Wunderman Thompson LLC), implying some level of established capability.
The contract duration is relatively short (approx. 10 months), allowing for periodic re-evaluation of needs and performance.

Sector Analysis

The advertising industry is a significant sector supporting government and private entities in reaching target audiences. Federal agencies, particularly large ones like the Department of Defense, frequently engage advertising agencies for a wide range of communication needs, from recruitment to public information campaigns. Spending in this sector is driven by the need for strategic messaging and creative development. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large federal advertising contracts across different agencies.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside component, as indicated by 'sb': false. Furthermore, the 'ss' (small business) flag is also false. This suggests that the contract was not specifically targeted towards small businesses, and there is no explicit indication of subcontracting goals for small businesses within the provided data. The primary focus was likely on obtaining the best overall proposal through open competition.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and financial management offices. Given the 'Cost No Fee' structure, rigorous auditing of expenditures and performance against contract requirements would be essential. Transparency would be facilitated through contract award databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Advertising Contracts
Navy Marketing and Public Relations
Federal Advertising Services
Government Communications Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost Control Risk (Cost No Fee)
Performance Measurement Difficulty
Potential for Ineffective Campaigns

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $21.2 million to WUNDERMAN THOMPSON LLC. MCRC ADV SERVICES - ODC

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WUNDERMAN THOMPSON LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21.2 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2012-01-18. End: 2012-11-30.

What specific advertising campaigns or objectives were pursued under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact advertising campaigns or objectives undertaken during the contract period. Typically, such contracts support a range of activities including recruitment drives for military personnel, public awareness campaigns about defense initiatives, or messaging related to national security. Without detailed statements of work or performance reports, the precise nature of the services rendered remains unspecified. Further investigation into the Department of the Navy's procurement records or public affairs releases from the 2012 period might shed light on the specific initiatives supported by Wunderman Thompson LLC.

How does the $21.2 million cost compare to similar large-scale federal advertising contracts?

Benchmarking the $21.2 million cost requires comparing it to similar large-scale advertising contracts awarded by federal agencies during the 2012-2013 timeframe. Contracts for major campaigns, especially those with national reach and complex creative requirements, can range significantly. For instance, large recruitment campaigns by the Army or Air Force, or public health initiatives by agencies like HHS, could involve similar or higher expenditures. The 'Cost No Fee' structure also adds a layer of complexity, as it implies the government reimburses the contractor's allowable costs plus a negotiated fee, rather than a fixed price. A direct comparison would ideally look at contracts with similar scopes of work, durations, and award types.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to evaluate the success of this contract?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for this contract. In 'Cost No Fee' contracts, performance is often evaluated based on the contractor's ability to deliver services within agreed-upon parameters and manage costs effectively. For advertising contracts, potential KPIs could include reach, frequency, engagement rates, lead generation (e.g., recruitment inquiries), brand sentiment shifts, or cost per impression. The absence of explicit KPIs in the summary data makes it difficult to quantitatively assess the contractor's performance and the overall success of the advertising efforts funded by this contract.

What is the track record of Wunderman Thompson LLC in handling large federal advertising contracts?

Wunderman Thompson LLC, as a large advertising agency, likely has a substantial track record in handling federal contracts, though specific details for this particular $21.2 million DoD contract are not provided. Agencies like the Department of Defense often engage established firms with proven experience in government marketing and communications. Their track record would typically involve successful execution of campaigns, adherence to federal regulations, and effective cost management. A deeper dive into federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) and agency performance reviews could reveal more about their past performance on similar contracts, including client satisfaction and any past performance issues.

Were there any significant risks identified during the procurement or performance of this contract?

While the provided data doesn't explicitly list risks, potential risks associated with a contract of this nature and value include cost overruns (especially with 'Cost No Fee' contracts if not managed tightly), ineffective campaign performance failing to meet objectives, contractor performance issues, or challenges in adapting to evolving communication landscapes. The 'full and open competition' award method itself mitigates some risks by ensuring a broad pool of potential contractors, but risks related to execution and cost control remain. Robust oversight and clear performance metrics are crucial for mitigating these potential risks.

How has federal spending on advertising services evolved since this contract was awarded in 2012?

Federal spending on advertising services has likely evolved significantly since 2012, influenced by changes in media consumption, digital marketing advancements, and shifting government priorities. Post-2012, there has been a notable increase in digital advertising spend across government agencies, reflecting the migration of audiences online. Furthermore, data analytics and targeted advertising have become more sophisticated. While overall spending fluctuates based on agency budgets and specific campaign needs, the methods and platforms used have undoubtedly become more diverse and technologically driven, with a greater emphasis on measurable digital outcomes compared to traditional media buys prevalent in 2012.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Advertising, Public Relations, and Related Services › Advertising Agencies

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: M0026407R0009

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: WPP PLC (UEI: 232931092)

Address: 3630 PEACHTREE RD NE STE 1200, ATLANTA, GA, 90

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $21,200,941

Exercised Options: $21,200,941

Current Obligation: $21,200,941

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: M0026408D0001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline