State Department awards $13,732 firm-fixed-price purchase order for office furniture to Kingsley-Bate Ltd

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,733 ($13.7K)

Contractor: Kingsley-Bate Ltd

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2026-04-02

End Date: 2026-04-02

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ---------- COMMENTS: QUOTE TYPE: EMAIL QUOTE DATE: 2026-03-13 QUOTE NUMBER: 1125696 QUOTE PREPARED BY: BRYAN CRESPIN QUOTE EXPIRATION: 2026-06-13 (THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ACCEPT PRO FORMA NO DEPOSIT - NET 30 TERMS). PLEASE DO NOT: STORE CARD

Place of Performance

Location: MANASSAS, PRINCE WILLIAM County, VIRGINIA, 20109

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $13,732.8 to KINGSLEY-BATE LTD for work described as: ---------- COMMENTS: QUOTE TYPE: EMAIL QUOTE DATE: 2026-03-13 QUOTE NUMBER: 1125696 QUOTE PREPARED BY: BRYAN CRESPIN QUOTE EXPIRATION: 2026-06-13 (THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ACCEPT PRO FORMA NO DEPOSIT - NET 30 TERMS). PLEASE DO NOT: STORE CARD Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the single-source nature of the award. 2. Competition dynamics are limited, as the contract was not competed under SAP. 3. Risk indicators are low due to the small dollar value and short duration. 4. Performance context is minimal, with a single-day delivery expected. 5. Sector positioning is within the broader office supply and furniture market.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $13,732.80 is relatively small. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government, but the lack of competition means potential savings may have been forgone. The short duration and single delivery date suggest a straightforward procurement.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), indicating a sole-source award. The absence of multiple bidders limits the government's ability to leverage competition to drive down prices and ensure the best value. The specific reasons for not competing are not detailed in the provided data.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there is a higher likelihood of paying a non-competitive price. Without the pressure of competing bids, the awarded vendor may not have offered their most aggressive pricing.

Public Impact

The Department of State is the direct beneficiary, receiving office furniture. The service delivered is the provision of office furniture. The geographic impact is likely limited to the specific office location within Virginia where the furniture is delivered. Workforce implications are minimal, primarily affecting the administrative functions of the State Department.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher prices than a competed award.
Limited performance period offers little opportunity for ongoing performance assessment.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Small dollar value limits financial risk.
Single delivery date simplifies logistical oversight.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader office furniture and supplies sector. The market for office furniture is diverse, with numerous manufacturers and distributors. The government frequently procures office furniture, often through competitive contracts or GSA schedules. This specific award, however, is a small, non-competitive purchase, not indicative of broader market trends or significant sector spending.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (sb: false) and there is no information regarding subcontracting. As a sole-source award, it is unlikely that small business participation was a significant consideration in the procurement strategy.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of State's internal procurement and financial management controls. Given the small dollar value and single delivery, extensive oversight mechanisms are likely not required. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of public competition details.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules
Office Supplies Procurement
Department of State Facilities Management

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Sole-Source Award Justification Unclear

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $13,732.8 to KINGSLEY-BATE LTD. ---------- COMMENTS: QUOTE TYPE: EMAIL QUOTE DATE: 2026-03-13 QUOTE NUMBER: 1125696 QUOTE PREPARED BY: BRYAN CRESPIN QUOTE EXPIRATION: 2026-06-13 (THE US GOVERNMENT DOES NOT ACCEPT PRO FORMA NO DEPOSIT - NET 30 TERMS). PLEASE DO NOT: STORE CARD

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KINGSLEY-BATE LTD.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13,732.8.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-02. End: 2026-04-02.

What is the typical price range for office furniture of this type when procured competitively?

Determining the typical price range for office furniture without specific details on the items (e.g., chairs, desks, filing cabinets, materials, quantity) is challenging. However, government procurements, especially those through GSA Schedules or competitive solicitations, often yield prices that can be benchmarked. For instance, a standard office chair might range from $100-$500, while a desk could be $300-$1500 or more, depending on material and features. The $13,732 award suggests a moderate quantity or a mix of higher-end items. Without competitive data for this specific award, it's difficult to definitively state if the price is optimal, but the lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment compared to a best-value, competed scenario.

What are the specific items of office furniture being procured under this purchase order?

The provided data does not specify the exact items of office furniture being procured under this purchase order. It only indicates the general category as 'Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing' under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 337214. To assess the value and appropriateness of the $13,732.80 award, a detailed list of the furniture items, including quantities, materials, and specifications, would be necessary. This information is crucial for comparing pricing against market benchmarks and understanding the scope of the procurement.

Why was this contract not competed under SAP?

The provided data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' but does not offer a specific justification. Generally, procurements under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) threshold (typically $250,000) are expected to be competed to the maximum extent practicable. Reasons for not competing could include a sole-source justification based on unique capabilities of the vendor, urgent and compelling needs, or specific statutory authority. Without further documentation or explanation from the Department of State, the precise reason for the sole-source award remains unknown, which limits transparency and the ability to assess if competition was truly impracticable.

What is the track record of Kingsley-Bate Ltd. with federal government contracts?

Information regarding Kingsley-Bate Ltd.'s specific track record with federal government contracts is not detailed in the provided data snippet. While the company is listed as the awardee for this $13,732.80 purchase order with the Department of State, broader historical performance, past contract values, and client feedback within the federal space are not available. A comprehensive assessment of their track record would require accessing federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) to review their complete contract history, including any past performance evaluations or disputes.

How does this award compare to other office furniture procurements by the Department of State?

This award of $13,732.80 is a relatively small purchase order for office furniture. The Department of State, like many large federal agencies, likely engages in much larger, competitively bid contracts for its furniture needs, potentially through GSA Schedules or large IDIQ contracts. These larger contracts would involve significant dollar values and a wide range of furniture items. This specific award, being a sole-source, firm-fixed-price purchase order with a very short duration, appears to be an ad-hoc procurement for a specific, likely limited, need rather than a strategic sourcing effort for general office furnishings.

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: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 7200 GATEWAY CT, MANASSAS, VA, 20109

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: $13,733

Exercised Options: $13,733

Current Obligation: $13,733

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline