DOJ's $8M contract for management consulting services awarded to a single firm

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $8,000 ($8.0K)

Contractor: Woosley David L

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2026-04-26

End Date: 2026-05-08

Contract Duration: 12 days

Daily Burn Rate: $667/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: INSTRUCTOR

Place of Performance

Location: CHATTANOOGA, HAMILTON County, TENNESSEE, 37421

State: Tennessee Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $8,000 to WOOSLEY DAVID L for work described as: INSTRUCTOR Key points: 1. The contract value of $8 million for a 12-month duration suggests a significant need for specialized expertise. 2. Awarded under SAP, the procurement method indicates a streamlined process for smaller value contracts. 3. The fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 4. The single award raises questions about the extent of competition and potential for price optimization. 5. The services fall under 'Other Management Consulting Services,' a broad category that requires further definition for precise benchmarking. 6. The contract's short duration may indicate a need for immediate support or a pilot program.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is challenging without specific service details. However, an $8 million award for 12 months of management consulting suggests a substantial engagement. The fixed-price nature is generally favorable for the government if the scope is well-defined, but the lack of multiple bids limits direct price comparison. Without knowing the specific deliverables, it's difficult to assess if this represents excellent value for money compared to similar engagements.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was competed under SAP (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), which typically allows for more streamlined competition than full and open procedures. However, the data indicates only one award was made, suggesting that either the competition was limited in scope, or only one offeror was deemed suitable. The specific details of the SAP solicitation and the number of proposals received are not provided, making it difficult to fully assess the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: A limited competition may result in higher prices for taxpayers compared to a fully open and competitive process where multiple bidders vie for the contract.

Public Impact

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the primary beneficiary, likely receiving support for operational or administrative functions. The services provided are categorized as 'Other Management Consulting Services,' which could encompass a wide range of support, from strategic planning to process improvement. The contract is geographically focused on Tennessee (ST/SN), suggesting a localized need or a specific regional initiative. The impact on the workforce is unclear without knowing the nature of the consulting services, but it could involve advising on organizational structure or efficiency.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition may have led to suboptimal pricing.
The broad service category 'Other Management Consulting Services' lacks specificity for detailed performance evaluation.
The short duration could indicate a reactive rather than strategic engagement.

Positive Signals

Fixed-price contract shifts risk to the contractor.
Awarded under SAP, suggesting efficient procurement for the value.
The contractor, WOOSLEY DAVID L, is identified, allowing for track record review.

Sector Analysis

Management consulting services are a significant sector within professional services, supporting government agencies across various functions. The market is diverse, ranging from large, established firms to specialized boutique consultancies. This contract, valued at $8 million over 12 months, represents a moderate-sized engagement within this sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific type of consulting provided, such as IT strategy, human capital, or operational efficiency.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from a set-aside requirement. The award to a single entity, WOOSLEY DAVID L, does not provide information on whether they are a small or large business, nor does it detail any subcontracting plans. Analysis of small business impact would require further information on the prime contractor's size and subcontracting practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acquisition and Property Management Division within the Department of Justice. As a federal contract, it is subject to standard government oversight mechanisms, including contract performance monitoring and financial accountability. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases, though specific performance metrics and detailed reporting are typically internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Management and Technical Consulting Services
Professional Services
Other Business Services
Government Consulting Contracts

Risk Flags

Limited competition indicated by single award.
Broad service category lacks specificity for detailed analysis.
Potential for price optimization missed due to limited competition.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $8,000 to WOOSLEY DAVID L. INSTRUCTOR

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WOOSLEY DAVID L.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acquisition and Property Management Division).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $8,000.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-26. End: 2026-05-08.

What is the specific nature of the 'Other Management Consulting Services' being procured?

The provided data categorizes the services under NAICS code 541618, 'Other Management Consulting Services.' This is a broad classification that can encompass a wide array of consulting activities, including but not limited to, strategic planning, organizational development, process improvement, human capital management, and operational efficiency enhancements. Without a more detailed statement of work or service description, it is difficult to ascertain the precise nature of the support required by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acquisition and Property Management Division. This lack of specificity can make it challenging to benchmark the contract's value effectively or to assess the contractor's performance against clearly defined objectives.

How does the $8 million contract value compare to typical spending for similar management consulting services within the DOJ or ATF?

Direct comparison of the $8 million contract value for 12 months of 'Other Management Consulting Services' is difficult without more granular data on the specific services rendered. Federal agencies utilize management consultants for a variety of needs, ranging from short-term project support to long-term strategic overhauls. Contracts of this magnitude are not uncommon for significant consulting engagements within large federal departments like the Department of Justice. However, the 'fair' rating for value assessment stems from the limited competition and the broad service category. To provide a more accurate comparison, one would need to analyze contracts with similar NAICS codes, durations, and specific service scopes within the DOJ and across other federal agencies, considering factors like the number of bidders and the final negotiated prices.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding an $8 million contract under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP)?

Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) are designed for procurements valued below certain thresholds (currently $250,000, but can be higher for specific agencies/circumstances) to streamline the acquisition process. While this contract is valued at $8 million, the 'COMPETED UNDER SAP' designation suggests it might fall within an agency's higher SAP threshold or be part of a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicle where individual calls are processed under SAP. The primary risk associated with using SAP, especially for larger values, is potentially reduced competition compared to full and open procedures. This can limit price discovery and potentially lead to less favorable pricing for the government. Additionally, the streamlined nature of SAP might mean less rigorous documentation or review, increasing the risk of inadequate scope definition or performance monitoring if not managed carefully by the contracting officer.

What does the single award signify regarding the contractor's qualifications and the competitive environment?

A single award for an $8 million contract, even if competed under SAP, suggests several possibilities. It could indicate that only one contractor, WOOSLEY DAVID L, possessed the highly specialized skills or unique qualifications required for the specific consulting task. Alternatively, it might imply that the competition, while initiated, did not yield multiple acceptable proposals that met all the government's requirements, or that the solicitation was structured in a way that favored a particular type of offeror. From a taxpayer perspective, a single award limits the government's ability to leverage competitive pressures to secure the best possible price and value. It underscores the importance of robust market research and clear requirement definition during the pre-solicitation phase to ensure adequate competition.

How does the fixed-price contract type impact the government's risk and the contractor's incentive?

The contract is awarded as 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' (pt: "FIRM FIXED PRICE"), which is generally considered advantageous for the government when the scope of work is well-defined and unlikely to change significantly. Under this contract type, the contractor assumes the primary risk for cost overruns. If their costs exceed the agreed-upon price, their profit margin decreases, or they may incur a loss. Conversely, if they can perform the work for less than the fixed price, their profit increases. This structure provides a strong incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform efficiently. For the government, the main benefit is cost certainty; the total price is known upfront. The risk for the government lies in the potential for the contractor to cut corners on quality or scope to protect their profit margin if the fixed price proves insufficient for a thorough job, especially if the scope was not perfectly defined.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Other Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2501 SHENANDOAH DR, CHATTANOOGA, TN, 37421

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Sole Proprietorship, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $8,000

Exercised Options: $8,000

Current Obligation: $8,000

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 15A00021AAQA00552

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline