Justice Department awards $21.47M for office furniture, raising questions on value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $21,471 ($21.5K)

Contractor: Humanscale Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2026-04-08

End Date: 2026-04-29

Contract Duration: 21 days

Daily Burn Rate: $1.0K/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: NEW YORK, NEW YORK County, NEW YORK, 10010

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $21,471.03 to HUMANSCALE CORPORATION for work described as: NIGHTINGALE OPEN MARKET Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its short duration and the nature of the goods procured. 2. Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and reduced price discovery. 3. The fixed-price structure with economic price adjustment introduces potential for cost escalation. 4. The use of a purchase order for a significant amount suggests a less rigorous procurement process. 5. The contract falls within the manufacturing sector, specifically office furniture, with a specific NAICS code. 6. The short performance period may indicate a need for immediate supply or a pilot program.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $21.47 million for a 21-day period for office furniture seems disproportionately high. Benchmarking against similar furniture procurements, especially those with open competition, would be necessary to assess true value for money. The fixed-price with economic price adjustment clause also introduces risk of cost increases beyond initial estimates, making a definitive value assessment challenging without further data on market price fluctuations and the contractor's cost structure.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed under the simplified acquisition procedures and was awarded as a purchase order. The data indicates it was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' and was awarded to 'HUMANSCALE CORPORATION'. The lack of open competition, especially for a significant dollar amount, suggests potential limitations in price discovery and may not have yielded the most cost-effective solution for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. Without a competitive process, there is less assurance that the government secured the best possible price for the office furniture.

Public Impact

The Department of Justice will benefit from the procurement of office furniture. The services delivered include the supply of office furniture, essential for workspace functionality. The geographic impact is concentrated in New York, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications are minimal, primarily affecting the logistics and installation of furniture.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to inflated prices.
Economic price adjustment clause introduces cost escalation risk.
Short performance period for a large award raises questions about planning and urgency.
Award via purchase order might bypass standard competitive safeguards.

Positive Signals

Procurement of necessary office furniture for government operations.
Contract awarded to a specific manufacturer, potentially ensuring product consistency.
Clear end date for the contract, defining the period of performance.

Sector Analysis

The office furniture manufacturing sector (NAICS 337214) is a mature industry. This contract represents a significant award within this niche. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large government furniture procurements or large commercial contracts to gauge pricing norms. The Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) is also listed as the servicing agency, which often implies specific manufacturing capabilities or mandates.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate any small business set-aside or subcontracting requirements for this contract. The award was made directly to 'HUMANSCALE CORPORATION'. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears to be nil, and there are no explicit subcontracting opportunities for small businesses stemming from this specific award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of Justice's internal procurement oversight and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) if protests or specific concerns are raised. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Office Furniture Schedules
Department of Defense Furniture Procurement
Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR) Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
High value for short duration
Economic price adjustment clause
Purchase order award mechanism

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $21,471.03 to HUMANSCALE CORPORATION. NIGHTINGALE OPEN MARKET

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is HUMANSCALE CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $21,471.03.

What is the period of performance?

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

What is the typical price range for office furniture procured by the federal government, and how does this contract compare?

Determining a precise 'typical' price range for federal office furniture is complex due to variations in item type, quality, quantity, and contract vehicle. However, federal agencies often leverage GSA Schedules or competitive solicitations to secure furniture. Awards made through open competition typically yield prices that reflect market dynamics. This $21.47 million award for a short duration, especially if it involves standard office furniture, appears high. Without specific itemization and comparison to GSA Schedule pricing or recent competitive awards for similar items, it's difficult to definitively benchmark. However, the lack of competition suggests a potential for prices above market norms. Further analysis would require detailed specifications of the furniture procured and comparison against publicly available pricing data for comparable items.

What are the specific risks associated with a 'FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT' contract type for office furniture?

The 'FIXED PRICE WITH ECONOMIC PRICE ADJUSTMENT' (FPEPA) contract type introduces several risks for the government, particularly in a volatile market. While the base price is fixed, the economic price adjustment (EPA) clause allows for price increases based on specified economic indicators (e.g., inflation, raw material costs). For office furniture, this could mean increases tied to lumber, metal, or transportation costs. The primary risk is that these adjustments could lead to a final price significantly higher than initially anticipated, eroding the value proposition. It also adds administrative burden to track and validate the EPA calculations. The government must carefully monitor the indices used for adjustment and ensure they accurately reflect market conditions to prevent unwarranted price hikes.

Why would the Department of Justice opt for a sole-source award via a purchase order for a substantial amount of office furniture?

Sole-source awards, especially via purchase orders for significant amounts, are typically justified under specific circumstances outlined in federal acquisition regulations. Potential reasons could include an urgent and compelling need where competition is not feasible, a unique capability possessed by only one source, or if the value falls under certain thresholds where simplified acquisition procedures allow for less formal competition (though $21.47M typically exceeds these). Another possibility is if the award is made through specific mandatory sources, like Federal Prison Industries (UNICOR), which is listed as the servicing agency here. UNICOR has a mandate to provide products and services to the government, sometimes limiting competition. Without explicit justification documentation, the rationale remains speculative but likely tied to regulatory exceptions or mandatory source requirements.

What is the track record of HUMANSCALE CORPORATION in federal contracting, particularly regarding pricing and competition?

Information regarding HUMANSCALE CORPORATION's specific track record in federal contracting, particularly concerning pricing and competition for awards of this magnitude, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive analysis would require accessing historical contract databases (like FPDS-NG) to review past awards, contract types, competition levels, and any associated performance or pricing reviews. Generally, manufacturers in the office furniture sector may hold various contract vehicles, including GSA Schedules, which are competitively awarded. Understanding their history with sole-source versus competed awards, and any documented issues related to pricing or performance, would be crucial for a full assessment.

How does the short performance period (21 days) for this large award impact the assessment of value and risk?

A 21-day performance period for a $21.47 million contract is exceptionally short and significantly impacts the assessment of value and risk. It suggests either an extremely urgent requirement for the furniture or that this award represents a rapid fulfillment of a specific, immediate need rather than a long-term supply agreement. This short timeframe can limit the ability to conduct thorough market research and competitive bidding, potentially contributing to a sole-source award. From a value perspective, it raises questions about whether the government is paying a premium for speed. The risk is heightened because there is less time for oversight, quality assurance, and recourse if issues arise during delivery or installation. It also implies that follow-on contracts or a more sustainable procurement strategy might be necessary.

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: 1114 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS FL 15, NEW YORK, NY, 10036

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: $21,471

Exercised Options: $21,471

Current Obligation: $21,471

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline