GSA Awards $4.45M Purchase Order for Office Supplies to RITE-KEM, Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,450 ($4.5K)

Contractor: Rite-Kem, Inc.

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-10

End Date: 2026-04-30

Contract Duration: 20 days

Daily Burn Rate: $223/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FOLDER, FILE: - SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR DETAIL.

Place of Performance

Location: TUPELO, LEE County, MISSISSIPPI, 38801

State: Mississippi Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $4,450 to RITE-KEM, INC. for work described as: FOLDER, FILE: - SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR DETAIL. Key points: 1. Contract awarded to RITE-KEM, Inc. for office supplies. 2. Total award value is $4.45 million. 3. Contract duration is 20 days. 4. Procurement method was not competed under SAP. 5. Firm Fixed Price contract type.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The award value of $4.45 million for a 20-day duration seems high for office supplies. Without detailed line-item data, it's difficult to assess if the pricing is competitive against market rates or similar government contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was not competed under SAP, suggesting a limited competition or potentially a sole-source justification not detailed here. This limits price discovery and may lead to suboptimal pricing for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of robust competition raises concerns about taxpayer value, as the government may be overpaying for these office supplies.

Public Impact

Federal agencies relying on these office supplies may face potential price inflation due to limited competition. The short duration of the contract could necessitate rapid re-procurement, leading to administrative overhead. Transparency in the procurement process is crucial to ensure fair pricing and efficient use of taxpayer funds.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition
High award value for short duration
Lack of detailed justification for non-competition

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty
Award to a single vendor simplifies acquisition

Sector Analysis

The office supplies sector is generally competitive, with numerous manufacturers and distributors. Awards of this magnitude, especially for short durations and without clear competition, warrant scrutiny to ensure alignment with sector benchmarks.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate whether RITE-KEM, Inc. is a small business. Further analysis is needed to determine the impact on small business participation in federal contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight is needed to understand the justification for not competing this award under SAP and to ensure the pricing is fair and reasonable given the limited competition and short contract duration.

Related Government Programs

Office Supplies (except Paper) Manufacturing
General Services Administration Contracting
Federal Acquisition Service Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
High value for short duration
Potential for overpricing
Insufficient justification for procurement method

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $4,450 to RITE-KEM, INC.. FOLDER, FILE: - SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT FOR DETAIL.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RITE-KEM, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4,450.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-10. End: 2026-04-30.

What is the specific justification for not competing this award under SAP, and how was the price determined to be fair and reasonable?

The justification for not competing under SAP is not provided in the data. Typically, this could be due to urgency, lack of available sources, or specific program requirements. Price reasonableness is usually determined through market research, comparison to previous contracts, or catalog pricing. Without the justification, it's impossible to assess the validity of the price.

What is the risk associated with awarding $4.45 million for only 20 days of office supplies?

The primary risk is overpayment due to the lack of competition and the extremely short duration. A 20-day period suggests a very specific, potentially urgent need. If the pricing isn't benchmarked rigorously against market rates or similar contracts, the government could incur significant unnecessary costs for a brief period.

How effective is this procurement strategy in ensuring value for taxpayer money?

This procurement strategy appears questionable in terms of effectiveness for taxpayer value. Limited competition inherently reduces the pressure on vendors to offer the lowest prices. The high value for a short duration, without clear justification, suggests a potential for inefficiency and overspending, undermining the goal of maximizing value.

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: 703 WESTMORELAND DR, TUPELO, MS, 38801

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,450

Exercised Options: $4,450

Current Obligation: $4,450

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline