GSA awards $2.77M for plastic sheeting, raising questions about competition and value

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $2,770 ($2.8K)

Contractor: Star Poly BAG, Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-03

End Date: 2026-04-24

Contract Duration: 21 days

Daily Burn Rate: $132/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PLASTIC SHEET

Place of Performance

Location: BROOKLYN, KINGS County, NEW YORK, 11207

State: New York Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $2,770 to STAR POLY BAG, INC. for work described as: PLASTIC SHEET Key points: 1. Limited competition may have inflated pricing for essential plastic sheeting. 2. The short duration of the contract suggests a potential for frequent re-competition. 3. Lack of small business set-aside raises concerns about equitable opportunity. 4. The contract's value is modest, but its necessity for operations is clear. 5. Performance risks appear low given the nature of the product. 6. Sector positioning is within general supplies, not specialized manufacturing.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $2.77 million for plastic sheeting is difficult to benchmark without more specific product details and market data. However, the fact that it was not competed under SAP (Simplified Acquisition Procedures) suggests it may have exceeded thresholds where competition is typically expected. The firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty, but the absence of competitive bidding limits the government's ability to ensure the best possible price. Without comparable contract data or market analysis, assessing the true value-for-money is challenging.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP,' which, in this context, implies a sole-source or limited competition scenario. The absence of a competitive bidding process means that multiple vendors were likely not solicited, or only a select few were approached. This lack of broad competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to drive down prices and ensure the most advantageous terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the lack of competitive pressure to secure the lowest possible price for the plastic sheeting.

Public Impact

Federal agencies requiring plastic sheeting for various operational needs will benefit from this contract. The services delivered include the provision of essential plastic sheeting materials. The geographic impact is centered in New York, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications are minimal, likely involving manufacturing and distribution roles within the contractor's organization.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Absence of small business participation limits economic opportunity.
Short contract duration could indicate a need for more strategic sourcing.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Contract awarded to a known entity, potentially reducing immediate performance risk.

Sector Analysis

The procurement of plastic sheeting falls under the broader category of general supplies and materials. The market for plastic sheeting is diverse, with numerous manufacturers and distributors. This contract, valued at $2.77 million, represents a small portion of overall federal spending on supplies. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within broader categories of office or facility supplies, rather than specialized industrial materials.

Small Business Impact

The contract indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside requirement ('sb': false). This means that the opportunity was not exclusively reserved for small businesses, nor does it appear to have specific subcontracting goals for small businesses. The lack of a set-aside could limit the direct economic benefit to the small business ecosystem for this particular procurement, although the prime contractor may engage small businesses in their supply chain.

Oversight & Accountability

As a purchase order issued by the General Services Administration (GSA), this contract is subject to GSA's internal oversight and procurement regulations. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature. Accountability would primarily rest with the contracting officer to ensure the necessity and justification for the sole-source award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration Supply Schedules
Federal Acquisition Service Contracts
Purchase Orders for General Supplies

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Ambiguous NAICS Code Match

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $2,770 to STAR POLY BAG, INC.. PLASTIC SHEET

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is STAR POLY BAG, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $2,770.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-03. End: 2026-04-24.

What is the specific type and quality of plastic sheeting being procured, and how does it compare to commercially available products?

The provided data only specifies 'PLASTIC SHEET' and the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 334515, which relates to 'Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals.' This NAICS code appears to be a mismatch for the product description. Without a more precise product description, technical specifications, or grade of plastic sheeting, it is impossible to compare its quality or suitability to commercially available alternatives. The ambiguity in the NAICS code itself raises a flag regarding the accuracy of the procurement data.

What is the justification for not competing this contract under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP)?

The data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP.' Simplified Acquisition Procedures are typically used for purchases below certain dollar thresholds (e.g., $250,000, though this can vary). Since this contract is valued at $2.77 million, it exceeds the standard SAP thresholds. The justification for not competing it more broadly would likely fall under exceptions to full and open competition, such as a sole-source justification based on unique capabilities, urgent need, or lack of available sources. However, the specific reason for this non-competitive award is not detailed in the provided data.

How does the price of $2.77 million for this plastic sheeting compare to historical spending on similar items by the GSA or other agencies?

Direct historical spending comparisons for this specific 'PLASTIC SHEET' procurement are not available from the provided data. The total award amount is $2.77 million. Without knowing the quantity, specific type, and quality of the plastic sheeting, it's impossible to establish a meaningful per-unit cost or compare it to past procurements. The fact that it was a non-competed award also makes direct price comparisons difficult, as competitive awards typically yield better price discovery. Further analysis would require access to historical contract databases with detailed product specifications and pricing.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source or limited-competition award for essential materials like plastic sheeting?

The primary risk associated with a sole-source or limited-competition award for essential materials is the potential for inflated pricing. When competition is absent, the government loses the leverage to negotiate the best possible price, potentially leading to higher costs for taxpayers. Other risks include reduced innovation, less incentive for the contractor to improve quality or service, and a lack of transparency in the procurement process. Furthermore, it can limit opportunities for small businesses and create a perception of favoritism or inefficiency.

What is the track record of STAR POLY BAG, INC. in fulfilling federal contracts, particularly for similar materials?

The provided data indicates that STAR POLY BAG, INC. is the contractor for this $2.77 million purchase order for plastic sheeting. However, the data does not offer any information regarding their past performance on federal contracts, their history of fulfilling similar material procurements, or their overall track record. To assess their reliability and past performance, a review of contract databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) for previous awards, performance evaluations, and any reported issues would be necessary.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Navigational, Measuring, Electromedical, and Control Instruments Manufacturing › Instrument Manufacturing for Measuring and Testing Electricity and Electrical Signals

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: 200 LIBERTY AVE, BROOKLYN, NY, 11207

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, HUBZone Firm, Manufacturer of Goods, Minority Owned Business, Other Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business, Woman Owned Business, Women Owned Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,770

Exercised Options: $2,770

Current Obligation: $2,770

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline