Interior's $6M GIS contract awarded to MIKIBA, LLC, lacks competition and faces value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,049,001 ($6.0M)

Contractor: Mikiba, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 2023-04-12

End Date: 2026-10-01

Contract Duration: 1,268 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.8K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CGB GIS TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT

Place of Performance

Location: SACRAMENTO, SACRAMENTO County, CALIFORNIA, 95825

State: California Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $6.0 million to MIKIBA, LLC for work described as: CGB GIS TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT Key points: 1. The contract's value proposition is unclear due to the absence of competitive bidding. 2. Limited competition raises questions about whether the government secured the best possible price. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type offers some cost certainty but doesn't mitigate potential overspending without competition. 4. Performance context is limited as this is a new award, making historical performance analysis impossible. 5. The contract falls within the administrative management and general management consulting services sector. 6. The sole-source nature of the award is a significant risk indicator for cost efficiency.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of competitive bids. Without comparison to other offers, it's difficult to ascertain if the $6.05 million price tag represents fair market value for GIS technical services. The firm-fixed-price structure provides some cost predictability, but the absence of a competitive process means the government may not have achieved optimal pricing. Further analysis would require understanding the specific deliverables and comparing them to industry standards for similar GIS support.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) and was awarded as a sole-source purchase order to MIKIBA, LLC. The lack of competition means that only one vendor was considered, preventing a robust price discovery process. This approach limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to obtain the most advantageous terms and pricing. The rationale for a sole-source award would need to be thoroughly documented to justify the absence of broader competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may be paying a premium for these services due to the lack of competitive pressure. Without multiple bids, there's a reduced incentive for the contractor to offer the lowest possible price.

Public Impact

The Bureau of Reclamation, a division of the Department of the Interior, will benefit from these GIS technical services. The contract aims to deliver essential support for Geographic Information System (GIS) operations. The geographic impact is focused on California, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications are likely to involve specialized GIS professionals employed by MIKIBA, LLC.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated pricing.
Sole-source awards require strong justification to ensure taxpayer value.
Absence of performance history for this specific contract makes future assessment difficult.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the defined scope.
The contract is awarded to a single entity, potentially allowing for focused expertise.
The duration of the contract allows for sustained support.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls under the Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services (NAICS 541611) sector. This sector encompasses a wide range of professional services, including IT support and technical consulting. The market for GIS services is competitive, with numerous firms offering specialized expertise. However, the specific award mechanism here bypasses typical competitive dynamics. Comparable spending benchmarks for GIS technical services can vary widely based on scope, duration, and complexity, but a sole-source award warrants closer scrutiny.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. The award to MIKIBA, LLC, a single entity, does not appear to directly support the small business ecosystem through set-asides or mandated subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily reside with the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation. As a purchase order, it is subject to internal agency procurement regulations and oversight. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and ongoing performance monitoring will be key accountability measures. The Inspector General's office for the Department of the Interior would have jurisdiction over any potential fraud, waste, or abuse related to this contract.

Related Government Programs

Department of the Interior IT Services
Bureau of Reclamation IT Support
Geographic Information System (GIS) Services
Management and Consulting Services

Risk Flags

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

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $6.0 million to MIKIBA, LLC. CGB GIS TECHNICAL SERVICES CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MIKIBA, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Interior (Bureau of Reclamation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2023-04-12. End: 2026-10-01.

What is the specific justification for awarding this GIS technical services contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source awards are made when only one responsible source is available or capable of providing the required services. This could be due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent and compelling needs. Without the official justification documentation (e.g., a Justification and Approval document), it is impossible to fully assess the validity of bypassing the competitive process. Agencies are required to document and approve sole-source procurements, and this documentation is crucial for transparency and accountability.

How does the $6.05 million contract value compare to similar GIS technical services contracts awarded by the federal government?

Direct comparison of the $6.05 million contract value to similar GIS technical services contracts is difficult without knowing the specific scope of work, duration, and complexity of services required. However, given that this is a sole-source award, there is an inherent risk that the price may not be as competitive as it would be in a fully competed environment. Federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) could be queried for similar contracts, but a true benchmark would require detailed analysis of deliverables and market rates for comparable services. The firm-fixed-price nature suggests a defined scope, but the lack of competition prevents a definitive value assessment against market alternatives.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for GIS technical services?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source award is the potential for inflated pricing due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without multiple vendors vying for the contract, the government may not achieve the best possible value for its money. Other risks include a lack of innovation that might arise from diverse vendor approaches, and potential vendor lock-in if the services are highly specialized. Furthermore, sole-source awards can sometimes face scrutiny regarding fairness and transparency, especially if the justification for not competing is weak. Ensuring robust oversight and clear performance metrics becomes even more critical in such scenarios.

What is MIKIBA, LLC's track record with federal GIS contracts, particularly sole-source awards?

Information regarding MIKIBA, LLC's specific track record with federal GIS contracts, especially sole-source awards, is not provided in the data. A comprehensive assessment would require searching federal procurement databases (e.g., SAM.gov, FPDS) for past awards to this contractor. This would help determine their experience, past performance ratings, and the frequency of sole-source awards. Understanding their history can provide insights into their capabilities and reliability, as well as whether this sole-source award is an anomaly or a pattern.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure the effective delivery of GIS technical services under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific performance metrics or oversight mechanisms for this contract. However, as a federal contract, it is expected to have defined deliverables, quality standards, and reporting requirements. The Bureau of Reclamation contracting officer and technical points of contact would be responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance with the contract terms. The firm-fixed-price nature implies that the contractor is responsible for delivering the agreed-upon services within the set price. Robust oversight would involve regular progress reviews, acceptance of deliverables, and potentially performance evaluations.

How does this $6.05 million contract fit into the broader spending patterns for GIS services within the Department of the Interior or the Bureau of Reclamation?

Without historical spending data for GIS services within the Department of the Interior or the Bureau of Reclamation, it is difficult to place this $6.05 million contract within a broader context. Analyzing past expenditures on similar services would reveal whether this award represents a significant increase, decrease, or consistent level of investment. Understanding the agency's overall GIS strategy and budget allocation for such services would also provide valuable context. This single award's significance can only be truly assessed when compared against a backdrop of historical and planned spending in this domain.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

Product/Service Code: PHOTO, MAP, PRINT, PUBLICATION › PHOTOGR, MAPPING, PRINTING, PUBLISH

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 101 N GREENVILLE AVE STE C 18, ALLEN, TX, 75002

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Asian Pacific American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business, Joint Venture Economically Disadvantaged Women Owned Small Business, Joint Venture Women Owned Small Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,049,001

Exercised Options: $6,049,001

Current Obligation: $6,049,001

Actual Outlays: $4,900,470

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline