GSA awards $3.2M for fasteners, raising questions about competition and value for essential office supplies

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $3,200 ($3.2K)

Contractor: Tera Consulting Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-03

End Date: 2026-04-18

Contract Duration: 15 days

Daily Burn Rate: $213/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: RD.T4.4B.1 EQUIPMENT FASTENER 50 LBS BLACK

Place of Performance

Location: LEVITTOWN, NASSAU County, NEW YORK, 11756

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $3,200 to TERA CONSULTING INC. for work described as: RD.T4.4B.1 EQUIPMENT FASTENER 50 LBS BLACK Key points: 1. The contract value of $3.2 million for fasteners appears high for the specified quantity and duration. 2. Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of market-driven pricing. 3. The short performance period (15 days) suggests an urgent need or a pilot program, but the value is disproportionate. 4. The classification of fasteners under 'Office Supplies' may not fully capture the industrial nature of the purchase. 5. Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of this procurement. 6. The sole-source nature of this award warrants scrutiny regarding justification and alternative sourcing options.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The awarded amount of $3.2 million for 50 lbs of black fasteners over 15 days seems exceptionally high. Without specific details on the type and grade of fasteners, a direct comparison is difficult. However, typical industrial fasteners of this quantity would likely cost significantly less. This suggests a potential overvaluation or a misunderstanding of the product's market price. Further investigation into the specific requirements and the justification for this price is warranted.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' and appears to be a sole-source procurement. The lack of competition means that the government did not explore potential alternative suppliers or negotiate pricing based on multiple bids. This limits the government's ability to secure the best possible price and may indicate a failure to adequately plan for the procurement or a reliance on a single, potentially non-competitive, source.

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 achieve cost savings.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring office supplies, specifically fasteners, will receive the necessary materials. The procurement supports the operational needs of federal offices, ensuring essential supplies are available. The contract's impact is primarily administrative, facilitating the day-to-day functioning of government offices. The workforce implications are minimal, as this is a supply contract rather than a service or construction contract.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

High contract value for a seemingly simple commodity.
Sole-source award limits price discovery and potential savings.
Short performance period with a large dollar amount raises efficiency questions.
Lack of detailed product specifications makes value assessment challenging.

Positive Signals

Ensures availability of essential office supplies.
Procurement is managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), a central contracting authority.
Contract is a firm fixed price, providing cost certainty once awarded.

Sector Analysis

The procurement of office supplies, including fasteners, falls under the broad category of general administrative and operational support for federal agencies. The market for office supplies is typically characterized by a wide range of suppliers, from large manufacturers to specialized distributors. However, the specific nature of 'fasteners' can range from common hardware store items to specialized industrial components. The value of this contract, $3.2 million, is unusually high for what is categorized as office supplies, suggesting either a very large quantity, specialized requirements, or a potential misclassification.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside (ss: false, sb: false). There is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Therefore, this procurement does not directly benefit the small business ecosystem through set-asides or mandated subcontracting.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for overseeing this contract. As a purchase order under the Federal Acquisition Service, it is subject to GSA's internal procurement policies and regulations. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of detailed public information. Oversight would typically involve GSA's contracting officers ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions, but the justification for the sole-source award and the pricing would be key areas for scrutiny.

Related Government Programs

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
GSA Office Supplies Schedules
General Services Administration Procurement Data

Risk Flags

High value for commodity item
Sole-source justification unclear
Lack of competitive bidding
Disproportionate price for duration/quantity

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $3,200 to TERA CONSULTING INC.. RD.T4.4B.1 EQUIPMENT FASTENER 50 LBS BLACK

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TERA CONSULTING INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $3,200.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-03. End: 2026-04-18.

What specific type and grade of fasteners are being procured under this contract, and what is the justification for the $3.2 million price tag?

The provided data indicates the item is 'EQUIPMENT FASTENER 50 LBS BLACK' with a total award of $3,200. However, the unit of measure for the $3.2 million award is not explicitly stated as '50 lbs'. Assuming the $3.2 million is the total award value, the quantity '50 lbs' seems exceptionally low for such a high price. If '50 lbs' refers to a specific batch or a unit of sale within the larger contract, more context is needed. Typically, fasteners are priced per piece, per box, or per pound, depending on the type and volume. Without detailed specifications (e.g., material, size, thread type, head style, grade/strength) and a clear breakdown of the quantity associated with the $3.2 million, it is impossible to definitively justify the price. This lack of specificity is a significant red flag.

Why was this contract not competed, and what efforts were made to explore competitive sourcing options?

The contract was designated as 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), and the award type is 'SOLE SOURCE'. This indicates that the GSA did not conduct a competitive bidding process. The justification for not competing is not provided in the data. Typically, sole-source awards require a documented justification, such as the existence of only one responsible source, an urgent and compelling need that precludes competition, or a specific statutory authorization. Without this justification, it raises concerns about whether the government adequately explored competitive options or if there were internal factors leading to a non-competitive award. The absence of competition limits the government's ability to obtain the best value.

How does the awarded price of $3.2 million for fasteners compare to market rates for similar products, considering the short duration?

Comparing the $3.2 million award to market rates for fasteners is challenging without precise specifications. However, even for specialized industrial fasteners, $3.2 million for what might be implied as a relatively small quantity (if '50 lbs' is a unit) or a very short duration (15 days) is extraordinarily high. Standard office supply fasteners (like those for paper) would cost a fraction of this amount. Industrial-grade fasteners, while more expensive, rarely reach such figures unless the quantity is massive or they are highly specialized, custom-made components. The short 15-day performance period further complicates the value assessment; it suggests either an extremely urgent, high-volume need or a pilot purchase. In either scenario, the price appears disproportionate to typical market benchmarks for fasteners.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a sole-source contract for essential office supplies like fasteners?

The primary risks associated with awarding a sole-source contract for essential office supplies like fasteners include inflated pricing, reduced quality, and potential supply chain disruptions. Without competition, the sole provider faces less pressure to offer competitive pricing, potentially leading to overpayment by the government. There's also a risk that the contractor may not prioritize quality or timely delivery as rigorously as they would in a competitive environment. Furthermore, relying on a single source can create vulnerabilities if that supplier experiences production issues, financial difficulties, or decides to discontinue the product, leaving the government scrambling for alternatives.

What is the historical spending pattern for this specific type of fastener or similar office supplies by the General Services Administration?

The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for this specific fastener or similar office supplies. To assess historical spending, one would need to query procurement databases for previous awards made by the GSA or other agencies for comparable items. Analyzing past contracts would reveal trends in pricing, competition levels, and the typical duration and value of such procurements. A significant deviation from historical norms, particularly a sudden increase in price or a shift to sole-source awards for items previously competed, would warrant further investigation into the reasons behind the change.

What oversight mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability and transparency for this sole-source purchase order?

Oversight for this purchase order would primarily fall under the purview of the GSA's contracting officers and internal review processes. As a sole-source award, the justification for not competing is a critical element that would be subject to review. Accountability would be measured by the contractor's adherence to the firm fixed price terms and delivery schedule. Transparency is inherently limited in sole-source procurements. While the award itself is likely recorded in federal procurement databases (like FPDS), the detailed justification, technical specifications, and negotiation records may not be publicly accessible, hindering a full assessment of accountability and value for money.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Other Miscellaneous Manufacturing › Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: OFFICE SUPPLIES AND DEVICES

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: 29 ELVES LN, LEVITTOWN, NY, 11756

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Black American Owned Business, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $3,200

Exercised Options: $3,200

Current Obligation: $3,200

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline