GSA awards $53M contract for medical supply management to Integrated Quality Solutions, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $52,943,734 ($52.9M)

Contractor: Integrated Quality Solutions, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2022-05-21

End Date: 2026-05-20

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $36.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MANAGED SERVICES SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT (SITE Y)

Place of Performance

Location: SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE County, UTAH, 84104

State: Utah Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $52.9 million to INTEGRATED QUALITY SOLUTIONS, LLC for work described as: MANAGED SERVICES SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT (SITE Y) Key points: 1. Contract value of $53 million over four years suggests significant operational scope. 2. Sole-source award raises questions about potential cost efficiencies and market competition. 3. The contract's duration of 1460 days indicates a long-term need for these services. 4. Focus on medical supplies and equipment points to critical healthcare infrastructure support. 5. The firm-fixed-price structure aims to provide cost certainty for the government. 6. The contract is categorized under General Warehousing and Storage, highlighting logistical importance.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $53 million over four years for managed services of medical supplies and equipment appears substantial. Without direct comparable contracts for similar scope and services from GSA or other agencies, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type suggests an attempt to control costs, but the lack of competition in the award process means there's less external pressure to ensure the most competitive pricing. Benchmarking against industry standards for warehouse management and medical supply chain logistics would be necessary for a more definitive value assessment.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed among multiple vendors. This approach is typically used when only one vendor can provide the required services, often due to unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or urgent needs where competition is not feasible. The lack of competition means that the government did not benefit from the price discovery and potential cost savings that typically arise from a competitive bidding process. This raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive bidding. The government missed an opportunity to leverage market forces to drive down costs and potentially achieve better service levels through competition.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring managed services for their government-owned medical supplies and equipment. The contract delivers essential logistical and warehousing support for critical medical items. The geographic impact is focused on 'Site Y' in Utah, indicating a specific operational location. Workforce implications may include the creation or maintenance of jobs related to warehousing, logistics, and medical supply chain management.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of transparency in the justification for a sole-source award.
Potential for vendor lock-in given the long-term nature of the contract.
Performance metrics and quality assurance details are not publicly available to assess service effectiveness.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Long contract duration (4 years) suggests a stable and reliable service provider.
Focus on medical supplies and equipment supports critical government functions, particularly in healthcare.
Contract is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), a reputable agency for federal procurement.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the broader logistics and warehousing sector, specifically supporting medical supplies and equipment. This niche within the supply chain is critical for government operations, especially in healthcare and emergency preparedness. The market for such specialized managed services can be competitive, but often involves established players with specific expertise. The $53 million value positions this as a significant contract within its domain, likely representing a substantial portion of the managed services for medical supplies at the designated site.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not awarded to a small business (sb: false) and does not appear to have a small business set-aside component (ss: false). Therefore, this specific award does not directly benefit small businesses through set-asides. However, the prime contractor, Integrated Quality Solutions, LLC, may engage small businesses as subcontractors to fulfill parts of the contract requirements, though this is not explicitly detailed in the provided data. The impact on the broader small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless subcontracting opportunities are significant.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Federal Acquisition Service. As a definitive contract, it is subject to standard federal procurement regulations and oversight. The firm-fixed-price nature implies that the contractor bears the risk of cost overruns, simplifying some aspects of financial oversight. However, the effectiveness of performance oversight, quality assurance, and accountability measures would depend on the specific terms within the contract and the GSA's contract management practices. Transparency regarding performance reports and any potential disputes would be key indicators of robust oversight.

Related Government Programs

Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) contracts
Medical Materiel Management
Government Warehousing and Storage Services
Healthcare Supply Chain Management
Logistics and Transportation Services

Risk Flags

Sole-source award
Lack of competition
Potential for cost inefficiency
Limited transparency on performance metrics

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $52.9 million to INTEGRATED QUALITY SOLUTIONS, LLC. MANAGED SERVICES SUPPORT FOR GOVERNMENT-OWNED MEDICAL SUPPLIES AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT (SITE Y)

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INTEGRATED QUALITY SOLUTIONS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Federal Acquisition Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $52.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2022-05-21. End: 2026-05-20.

What is the track record of Integrated Quality Solutions, LLC in managing federal contracts, particularly those involving medical supplies?

Information regarding the specific track record of Integrated Quality Solutions, LLC in managing federal contracts, especially those related to medical supplies, is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive assessment would require reviewing past performance evaluations, contract history with federal agencies, and any reported issues or successes. Given this is a sole-source award, it might imply a prior relationship or a specific capability that led to this direct award. Further investigation into the contractor's history, including any awards, terminations, or significant performance issues on previous government contracts, would be necessary to fully understand their reliability and expertise in this domain.

How does the $53 million contract value compare to similar managed services contracts for medical supplies and equipment within the federal government?

Directly comparing the $53 million contract value for managed services of medical supplies and equipment to similar federal contracts is challenging without access to a comprehensive database of comparable awards. The value is substantial, suggesting a significant scope of operations at 'Site Y' in Utah. Factors influencing contract value include the volume of supplies managed, the range of services provided (e.g., inventory, distribution, maintenance), the duration of the contract, and the specific requirements of the site. Benchmarking would ideally involve looking at contracts with similar North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes (like 493110 - General Warehousing and Storage) and specific service descriptions related to medical logistics across different agencies. The sole-source nature of this award also complicates direct value comparisons, as competitive bids often drive prices down.

What are the primary risks associated with a sole-source award for critical medical supply management?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award for critical medical supply management include potential overpricing due to the lack of competition, reduced incentive for the contractor to innovate or improve services beyond the contract minimums, and the risk of vendor lock-in. Without competitive pressure, the government may not be achieving the best possible value for its expenditure. Furthermore, if the sole-source contractor experiences performance issues or financial instability, the government has limited alternative options for immediate service continuity, potentially disrupting critical medical supply chains. Ensuring robust contract oversight and performance management becomes even more crucial in sole-source situations to mitigate these risks.

How effective is the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type in ensuring value for money in this context?

The firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract type is generally effective in providing cost certainty for the government, as the contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. This can be beneficial for managing budgets related to medical supply management. However, in a sole-source scenario, the 'firm' price might not necessarily represent the best value achievable through competition. While FFP incentivizes the contractor to control costs to maximize profit, the absence of competing bids means the baseline price itself might be higher than it would be in a competitive environment. Therefore, while FFP provides budget predictability, its effectiveness in ensuring the *best* value for money is diminished without a competitive award process.

What are the implications of the contract's focus on 'government-owned' medical supplies and equipment?

The focus on 'government-owned' medical supplies and equipment implies that the contractor is managing assets that belong to the federal government, rather than supplies procured by the contractor itself. This distinction is important for accountability and asset management. It means the contractor is responsible for the storage, handling, and potentially maintenance or distribution of these government assets. This requires robust inventory tracking systems and adherence to government property management regulations. The value of these government-owned assets could be substantial, and their proper management is critical for ensuring availability during operational needs and preventing loss or damage.

What is the historical spending pattern for managed services of medical supplies and equipment by the General Services Administration (GSA)?

Analyzing the historical spending patterns for managed services of medical supplies and equipment by the General Services Administration (GSA) would require access to historical procurement data beyond this single contract award. GSA, through its Federal Acquisition Service, manages a vast array of contracts across numerous categories. Understanding GSA's historical spending in this specific niche would involve examining trends in contract awards for warehousing, logistics, and medical supply chain management over several fiscal years. This could reveal whether GSA's spending in this area has been increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, and whether contracts have predominantly been competed or awarded sole-source. Without broader data, it's difficult to place this $53 million contract within a larger historical context of GSA's procurement activities.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Warehousing and Storage › General Warehousing and Storage

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: 47QFCA22R0002

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 585 S GREER ST APT 600, MEMPHIS, TN, 38111

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $68,468,771

Exercised Options: $53,899,235

Current Obligation: $52,943,734

Actual Outlays: $42,148,106

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline