VA awards $9.8M contract for exam tables, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,789 ($9.8K)

Contractor: Midmark Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Veterans Affairs

Start Date: 2026-04-16

End Date: 2026-07-16

Contract Duration: 91 days

Daily Burn Rate: $108/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Healthcare

Official Description: EXAM TABLE SERVICE

Place of Performance

Location: VERSAILLES, DARKE County, OHIO, 45380

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Veterans Affairs obligated $9,789 to MIDMARK CORPORATION for work described as: EXAM TABLE SERVICE Key points: 1. The contract for exam tables was awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting competitive pressure. 2. The duration of the contract (91 days) suggests a short-term need or a bridge to a larger procurement. 3. The fixed-price nature of the award provides cost certainty but may not reflect the best possible market price. 4. The agency's justification for not competing the award warrants further scrutiny. 5. The lack of competition could lead to higher prices than if multiple vendors had bid. 6. The specific use of 'Used Household and Office Goods Moving' for exam tables is unusual and requires clarification.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to benchmark the value for money. The award of $9.8 million for a 91-day period for exam tables, especially if they are used goods, appears high. A comparison to similar procurements for new medical equipment or even used goods in other federal agencies or the commercial market would be necessary to assess if this price is reasonable. The lack of transparency in pricing due to the sole-source nature prevents a robust value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not competed. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. This approach bypasses the standard competitive process, which typically involves issuing a solicitation, receiving proposals, and selecting the best offer. The absence of competition means there was no direct price comparison among potential suppliers, potentially impacting the government's ability to secure the most cost-effective solution.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the lack of competition. Without bids from multiple suppliers, the VA could not leverage market forces to drive down costs, potentially leading to an inefficient use of federal funds.

Public Impact

Veterans receiving care at VA facilities will benefit from the availability of exam tables. The contract ensures the provision of essential medical equipment for patient examinations. The primary geographic impact is within Ohio, where the contract is managed. The contract supports the VA's healthcare delivery mission, indirectly impacting medical professionals and support staff.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive pricing pressure.
Unclear justification for sole-source procurement.
High dollar amount for a short-duration contract.
Ambiguity in the description of goods ('Used Household and Office Goods Moving' for exam tables).

Positive Signals

Ensures availability of critical medical equipment for veterans.
Fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the VA.

Sector Analysis

The healthcare sector, particularly medical equipment procurement, is characterized by a wide range of suppliers, from large manufacturers to specialized distributors. Federal agencies like the VA are significant buyers of medical supplies and equipment. The market for exam tables can vary widely based on features, condition (new vs. used), and quantity. Benchmarking this contract against other federal procurements for similar items or against commercial pricing for new or refurbished exam tables would be crucial for assessing value.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not competed and there is no indication of small business set-asides or subcontracting plans. As a sole-source award, it is unlikely that small businesses were given an opportunity to compete for this specific contract. Further investigation would be needed to determine if any small business subcontracting opportunities were mandated or voluntarily pursued by the awardee.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight of this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Veterans Affairs' contracting officers and program managers. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature of the award. Accountability measures would depend on the VA's internal review processes and any post-award performance monitoring. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Medical Equipment Procurement
Veterans Health Administration Contracts
Sole Source Procurements
Durable Medical Equipment

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification.
Unusual NAICS code for the stated product.
High cost for a short-duration contract.
Lack of competitive bidding.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Veterans Affairs awarded $9,789 to MIDMARK CORPORATION. EXAM TABLE SERVICE

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MIDMARK CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Veterans Affairs (Department of Veterans Affairs).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9,789.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-16. End: 2026-07-16.

What is the specific justification provided by the VA for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source procurements are justified under circumstances where only one responsible source is available or capable of meeting the agency's needs. This could be due to unique capabilities, urgent and compelling needs, or specific government requirements that only one contractor can fulfill. Without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), it is impossible to ascertain the precise rationale. However, the lack of competition raises concerns about whether alternative sources were adequately explored or if the justification meets the stringent requirements for sole-source awards.

How does the $9.8 million price for 91 days of exam tables compare to market rates for similar equipment?

The price of $9.8 million for a 91-day contract for exam tables appears exceptionally high, especially considering the short duration. This equates to over $100,000 per day. Without knowing the exact specifications, quantity, and condition of the exam tables, a precise market comparison is difficult. However, even high-end new exam tables typically cost a few thousand dollars each. If this contract involves the rental or purchase of a large quantity of tables, or if it includes significant associated services, the cost might be partially explained. Nevertheless, the 'Used Household and Office Goods Moving' description is perplexing and suggests the items might not be standard medical equipment. A thorough market analysis comparing this price to commercial rates for new, used, or refurbished medical-grade exam tables, as well as any associated services, is essential to determine value for money.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a contract of this magnitude on a sole-source basis?

Awarding a contract of $9.8 million on a sole-source basis carries several risks. Primarily, it eliminates the potential for cost savings that competition typically provides. Without competing bids, the government may overpay for the goods or services. There's also a risk of receiving substandard quality if the contractor is not incentivized by market pressure to perform at their best. Furthermore, sole-source awards can create an appearance of impropriety or favoritism, potentially undermining public trust in the procurement process. Agencies must have robust justification for sole-source awards to mitigate these risks and ensure they are acting in the best interest of the taxpayer. The lack of transparency inherent in sole-source awards also makes it harder to identify and address potential issues proactively.

What is the significance of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 484210, and how does it relate to exam tables?

The NAICS code 484210, 'Used Household and Office Goods Moving,' is highly unusual in the context of procuring medical exam tables. This code typically applies to businesses primarily engaged in moving used household, office, and institutional furniture, fixtures, and equipment. It does not directly relate to the manufacturing, sale, or specialized distribution of medical equipment like exam tables. This discrepancy raises a significant red flag. It suggests either a misclassification of the contract's purpose or that the contract might be for the logistical services of moving existing exam tables rather than acquiring new ones. Clarification is urgently needed to understand what goods or services are actually being procured under this code and contract.

What is the track record of MIDMARK CORPORATION in supplying medical equipment to the federal government, particularly the VA?

Midmark Corporation is a known manufacturer of medical equipment, including exam tables, operating room equipment, and dental chairs. They have a history of supplying products to healthcare providers, including federal agencies. However, the specific details of their track record with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for contracts of this nature, especially sole-source awards, would require a deeper dive into federal procurement databases like FPDS-NG. While Midmark is a reputable company, the context of this particular award—a large sole-source purchase for a short duration under an unusual NAICS code—warrants scrutiny of their past performance and pricing on similar federal contracts to ensure fair value.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Specialized Freight Trucking › Used Household and Office Goods Moving

Product/Service Code: INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT › INSTALLATION OF EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 60 VISTA DR, VERSAILLES, OH, 45380

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: $9,789

Exercised Options: $9,789

Current Obligation: $9,789

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline