DOJ awards $27.3M for office furniture, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $27,322 ($27.3K)

Contractor: Krueger International, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2026-04-08

End Date: 2026-04-29

Contract Duration: 21 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT

Sector: Other

Official Description: NIGHTINGALE OPEN MARKET

Place of Performance

Location: GREEN BAY, BROWN County, WISCONSIN, 54302

State: Wisconsin Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $27,322.08 to KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC. for work described as: NIGHTINGALE OPEN MARKET Key points: 1. Contract awarded to Krueger International, Inc. for office furniture manufacturing. 2. Significant portion of the award value is tied to economic price adjustments. 3. The contract was not competed under simplified acquisition procedures, suggesting potential for better pricing. 4. Awarded to Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR), which may limit market competition. 5. The short duration of the contract (21 days) is unusual for a large award. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 337214 indicates a focus on office furniture manufacturing. 7. The contract is a purchase order, a less formal procurement instrument than a traditional contract.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The award of $27.3 million for office furniture warrants scrutiny, especially given the lack of competitive bidding. The inclusion of economic price adjustments introduces uncertainty regarding the final cost. Benchmarking against similar furniture procurements is difficult without more detailed cost breakdowns. The short performance period also raises questions about the scope and expected delivery timeline for such a substantial award.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded to Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) and was not competed under simplified acquisition procedures. This sole-source nature, or at least a highly restricted competition, means that the government did not explore the full range of potential suppliers. The lack of open competition limits the government's ability to secure the most favorable pricing and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the best value due to the absence of a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to higher costs than if multiple vendors had vied for the contract.

Public Impact

Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) is the primary beneficiary, fulfilling the contract. The services delivered include the manufacturing and supply of office furniture. The geographic impact is likely national, serving Department of Justice facilities. Workforce implications may involve manufacturing jobs within UNICOR's operations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of open competition may lead to suboptimal pricing.
Economic price adjustments introduce cost uncertainty.
Short contract duration raises questions about scope and feasibility.
Reliance on a single source (UNICOR) limits market exploration.

Positive Signals

UNICOR provides employment opportunities for federal prisoners.
The contract supports domestic manufacturing capabilities.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader manufacturing sector, specifically the production of office furniture (NAICS 337214). The federal government is a significant purchaser of office furniture, with spending often distributed across various agencies and through different procurement vehicles. Contracts with UNICOR are common for certain types of goods, reflecting a policy to support inmate labor programs. Benchmarking this specific award requires comparison to other large-scale furniture procurements, considering factors like customization, material, and delivery.

Small Business Impact

The award to Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) typically does not involve small business set-asides or subcontracting opportunities in the traditional sense, as UNICOR operates as a government-owned entity. This contract structure bypasses the typical mechanisms for engaging small businesses in federal contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Justice's procurement and financial management offices. As a purchase order awarded to UNICOR, specific oversight mechanisms might differ from traditional competitive contracts. Transparency is limited by the non-competitive nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply to any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) Procurement
Department of Justice Office Furniture Purchases
Government-Owned Manufacturing Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Uncertainty due to Economic Price Adjustments
Short Contract Duration vs. Award Value

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $27,322.08 to KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC.. NIGHTINGALE OPEN MARKET

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KRUEGER INTERNATIONAL, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Federal Prison Industries / Unicor).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $27,322.08.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-08. End: 2026-04-29.

What is the historical spending pattern for office furniture by the Department of Justice?

Analyzing historical spending for office furniture by the Department of Justice (DOJ) is crucial for context. While specific aggregated data for DOJ's office furniture procurement over extended periods is not readily available in this dataset, general trends indicate that federal agencies procure substantial amounts of office furniture annually. This spending is often distributed across numerous contracts, including those with UNICOR and through competitive solicitations. Understanding the DOJ's typical contract values, durations, and competition levels for similar furniture needs would provide a baseline against which this $27.3 million award can be more effectively evaluated. Without this historical perspective, it's challenging to determine if this award represents a significant increase or deviation from past procurement practices.

How do the economic price adjustment (EPA) terms in this contract compare to typical EPA clauses in federal furniture procurements?

The presence of Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) clauses in federal contracts allows for modifications to the contract price based on fluctuations in specified economic factors, such as labor or material costs. In this $27.3 million award for office furniture, the EPA terms are a key component that introduces cost uncertainty. Typically, EPA clauses are designed to protect both the contractor and the government from unforeseen market volatility. However, the specific terms, indices, and caps associated with the EPA in this contract are critical for assessing its fairness. Without detailed insight into these specific EPA provisions, it's difficult to benchmark them against standard practices. Generally, well-defined EPAs with clear triggers and limits are preferred to prevent excessive price increases and ensure fair value for the government. The broad nature of 'economic price adjustment' without further specification warrants closer examination.

What are the specific risks associated with a sole-source award to Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) for office furniture?

Awarding a contract solely to Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) for office furniture carries several inherent risks. Primarily, the lack of competition means the Department of Justice (DOJ) may not be obtaining the best possible price or quality available in the market. This can lead to overpayment and reduced value for taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, sole-source awards can stifle innovation and limit the government's access to new designs, materials, or manufacturing efficiencies that might be offered by other private sector companies. There's also a risk of complacency on the part of the sole provider, potentially leading to less focus on customer service or timely delivery compared to a competitive environment. While UNICOR serves a valuable social mission, its procurement structure bypasses the standard market mechanisms designed to ensure optimal government spending.

Given the short duration (21 days), what is the expected scope of work for this $27.3 million office furniture contract?

The extremely short duration of 21 days for a $27.3 million office furniture contract raises significant questions about the expected scope of work and the feasibility of fulfilling such an award within that timeframe. Typically, large-scale furniture procurements involve manufacturing, delivery, and installation, processes that usually require much longer lead times. This brief period suggests that the contract might be for immediate, urgent needs, or perhaps it represents only a portion of a larger requirement, with the possibility of follow-on orders. Alternatively, it could indicate a focus on specific, readily available stock items rather than custom manufacturing. Without further clarification on the contract's specific deliverables and performance expectations, the short duration appears incongruous with the substantial award value and the nature of furniture procurement.

How does the 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' designation impact the potential for cost savings on this contract?

The designation 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' (Simplified Acquisition Procedures) for this $27.3 million contract is significant. SAP is generally used for purchases below the threshold of $250,000, designed for efficiency and speed. When a contract of this magnitude is explicitly noted as not competed under SAP, it implies that it was either procured through other, potentially more formal, competitive processes (though this contract is listed as 'NOT COMPETED') or, more likely in this context given the sole-source nature, it bypassed even the basic competitive requirements that might apply to smaller purchases. If it was truly not competed at all, it means the government missed opportunities to solicit bids from multiple vendors, which is the primary mechanism for achieving cost savings and ensuring fair market prices. The fact that it wasn't even competed under the streamlined SAP rules for a large award suggests a deviation from standard best practices for maximizing value.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing › Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: FURNITURE

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT (K)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1330 BELLEVUE ST, GREEN BAY, WI, 54302

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $27,322

Exercised Options: $27,322

Current Obligation: $27,322

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline