Treasury's IRS spent $198,528 on workstation and office furniture, with no competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $198,529 ($198.5K)

Contractor: Talu LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of the Treasury

Start Date: 2020-06-01

End Date: 2020-08-31

Contract Duration: 91 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: WORKSTATION&OFFICE TYPICALS AS WELL AS WORKSTATION MOVE SERVICES.

Place of Performance

Location: HERNDON, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 20171

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Treasury obligated $198,528.87 to TALU LLC for work described as: WORKSTATION&OFFICE TYPICALS AS WELL AS WORKSTATION MOVE SERVICES. Key points: 1. Value for money is questionable due to the lack of competitive bidding. 2. Competition dynamics were absent, as the contract was not competed under SAP. 3. Risk indicators include potential overpayment and lack of market-tested pricing. 4. Performance context shows a short duration of 91 days for furniture delivery. 5. Sector positioning is within institutional furniture manufacturing, a niche market.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $198,528 for workstation and office furniture, including move services, appears high given the lack of competition. Without a competitive process, it is difficult to benchmark the pricing against market rates or similar contracts. The sole-source nature raises concerns about whether the government received the best possible value. The price per unit is not readily available for direct comparison, but the overall spend for a 91-day period suggests a need for further scrutiny.

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. There is no information on the number of bidders or the solicitation process. This lack of competition means that the government did not explore the market to identify potential suppliers or negotiate the best possible price. The absence of a competitive environment limits price discovery and may lead to higher costs.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for these goods and services due to the absence of a competitive bidding process. The lack of transparency in pricing negotiations means it's difficult to ascertain if the government secured the most cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is the primary beneficiary, receiving necessary office furniture and relocation services. The services delivered include the provision of workstations and office typicals, along with workstation move services. The geographic impact is localized to the IRS facilities in Virginia where the services were rendered. Workforce implications are minimal, primarily related to the logistics of moving existing workstations.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about price fairness and potential overpayment.
Absence of a competitive process limits transparency in vendor selection.
Short contract duration might indicate urgency or a specific, limited need.
No information provided on small business subcontracting, if applicable.

Positive Signals

Contract fulfilled a specific need for workstation and office furniture.
Services included logistical support for workstation moves.
The contract was awarded to TALU LLC, a known entity.
The purchase order was issued by a federal agency (Department of the Treasury).

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the broader category of office furniture and equipment procurement, a segment of the manufacturing and services sector. This market includes a wide range of suppliers, from large manufacturers to smaller, specialized providers. Federal spending in this area typically involves equipping new facilities, replacing aging furniture, or supporting office relocations. Benchmarking this specific contract is challenging without more detail on the exact items and services provided, but the total value suggests a significant furniture and installation package.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not competed under SAP and does not specify any small business set-aside provisions. It is unclear if TALU LLC is a small business or if any subcontracting opportunities were made available to small businesses. Without this information, the impact on the small business ecosystem cannot be determined, but the lack of competition suggests limited opportunities for small businesses to participate.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract was issued as a Purchase Order, a common mechanism for acquiring goods and services. Oversight would typically be managed by the contracting officer at the Department of the Treasury's Internal Revenue Service. Accountability measures would rely on the terms of the purchase order and the vendor's adherence to them. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award, with no public justification or competitive data available.

Related Government Programs

Federal Office Furniture Procurement
Government Relocation Services
Institutional Furniture Manufacturing Contracts
IRS Operational Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Limited Transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Treasury awarded $198,528.87 to TALU LLC. WORKSTATION&OFFICE TYPICALS AS WELL AS WORKSTATION MOVE SERVICES.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TALU LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Treasury (Internal Revenue Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $198,528.87.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-06-01. End: 2020-08-31.

What specific types of workstations and office furniture were procured under this contract?

The provided data indicates 'WORKSTATION&OFFICE TYPICALS AS WELL AS WORKSTATION MOVE SERVICES.' However, it does not specify the exact types, models, or quantities of workstations and office furniture. 'Office typicals' is a broad term that could encompass desks, chairs, filing cabinets, partitions, and other standard office furnishings. The inclusion of 'workstation move services' suggests that the contract may have covered the disassembly, transport, and reassembly of existing workstations, in addition to the procurement of new items or the rearrangement of current ones. Further details would be needed from the contract documentation to ascertain the precise nature of the items and services.

Why was this contract not competed under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP)?

The data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP.' Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) are typically used for purchases below a certain dollar threshold (e.g., $250,000 for most agencies, though this can vary). If the contract value was indeed $198,528.87, it falls within the SAP threshold. The fact that it was 'not competed' under SAP suggests it may have been awarded using other non-competitive authorities, such as a sole-source justification, or potentially it was processed outside of standard procurement channels for reasons not detailed in the provided summary. Without further information on the specific procurement authority used, the reason for not competing it under SAP remains unclear, but it strongly implies a non-competitive award.

What is the typical market price for similar workstation and office furniture services?

Determining a typical market price for 'workstation and office typicals as well as workstation move services' is complex without specific details on the items and scope of work. However, federal agencies often pay a premium for furniture and installation services compared to commercial buyers due to specific requirements, delivery logistics, and administrative overhead. For large-scale office furniture projects, costs can range significantly, from a few hundred dollars per workstation for basic setups to several thousand dollars for executive suites or custom configurations, including installation. Move services add another layer of cost based on labor, distance, and complexity. Given the $198,528.87 total for a 91-day period, and the lack of competition, it is difficult to benchmark without more granular data on the number of workstations, the type of furniture, and the extent of the move services.

What is the track record of TALU LLC in providing similar services to the federal government?

The provided data identifies TALU LLC as the contractor (co) for this purchase order. However, it does not offer any information regarding TALU LLC's past performance, track record, or experience with federal contracts, particularly in providing workstation and office furniture or related move services. To assess their track record, one would need to consult other federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for previous awards, contract performance reviews, and any reported issues. Without this additional context, it's impossible to evaluate their reliability or expertise based solely on this single contract.

How does this spending compare to other federal agencies procuring similar goods and services?

Comparing this $198,528.87 contract for workstation and office furniture and move services to spending by other federal agencies is challenging without more specific data points. Federal agencies procure furniture through various means, including GSA schedules, agency-specific contracts, and competitive solicitations. The value of individual furniture procurements can vary widely depending on the size of the office space, the type of furniture required (e.g., standard vs. executive), and whether installation or relocation services are included. A contract of this value might be considered moderate for a significant office setup or relocation. However, the lack of competition here makes a direct value comparison difficult, as competitive contracts often yield lower prices than sole-source awards.

What are the potential risks associated with a non-competed contract of this nature?

The primary risk associated with a non-competed contract, especially one that falls within the SAP threshold and was not competed, is the potential for inflated pricing and reduced value for money. Without competition, there is less incentive for the contractor to offer the lowest possible price, and the government lacks the leverage of multiple bids to negotiate favorable terms. Other risks include a limited pool of potential solutions or innovations, potential for vendor lock-in if the relationship continues, and reduced transparency in the procurement process. Furthermore, if the contractor's past performance is unknown or questionable, there's an increased risk of delivery delays, quality issues, or unmet requirements.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Household and Institutional Furniture and Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturing › Institutional Furniture 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: 2553 DULLES VIEW DR STE 700, HERNDON, VA, 20171

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $198,529

Exercised Options: $198,529

Current Obligation: $198,529

Actual Outlays: $198,529

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline