GSA awards $4.8M purchase order for electrical appliances, completed under SAP with 3 bidders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,800 ($4.8K)

Contractor: Bbmc Inc

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-03

End Date: 2026-05-03

Contract Duration: 30 days

Daily Burn Rate: $160/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: FLATIRON,ELECTRIC:

Place of Performance

Location: BERKSHIRE, BERKSHIRE County, MASSACHUSETTS, 01224

State: Massachusetts Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $4,800 to BBMC INC for work described as: FLATIRON,ELECTRIC: Key points: 1. The contract value of $4.8 million for a 30-day period suggests a high per-diem cost, warranting further investigation into the specific items procured. 2. Competition was present with three bidders, indicating some level of market engagement for this requirement. 3. The contract type is Firm Fixed Price, which transfers risk to the contractor but may not always yield the lowest price. 4. The award was made under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), typically for purchases under $250,000, raising questions about the $4.8M value. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 335210 points to Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing, suggesting the procurement is for a specific product category. 6. The short duration of 30 days for a purchase order of this magnitude is unusual and may indicate an urgent or temporary need.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award of $4.8 million for a 30-day period is exceptionally high, especially considering it was awarded under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), which are generally intended for purchases below $250,000. This suggests either a misunderstanding of SAP thresholds or a highly specialized and urgent need for electrical appliances. Without a detailed breakdown of the items and quantities, it is difficult to benchmark the value effectively. However, the per-day expenditure is approximately $160,000, which is a significant amount for appliance procurement.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was competed under SAP, and three bids were received. While competition was present, the use of SAP for a $4.8 million award is atypical and may suggest limitations in the procurement process or a specific justification for using SAP. The number of bidders (3) indicates some market interest, but the overall context of the award mechanism raises questions about the extent of true price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The presence of three bidders suggests some level of competition, which is generally favorable for taxpayers. However, the unusual application of SAP for such a large sum could potentially limit broader competition and price optimization opportunities.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely federal agencies requiring specific small electrical appliances for operational needs. The services delivered involve the supply of goods within the Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing sector. The geographic impact is not specified but is likely limited to the locations where the procuring agency operates or requires these appliances. Workforce implications are minimal, primarily affecting the supply chain and logistics for the contractor and potentially the manufacturing sector for these appliances.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The award value significantly exceeds the typical threshold for Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), raising concerns about compliance and potential missed opportunities for broader competition.
The extremely short performance period (30 days) for a $4.8 million purchase order is unusual and warrants investigation into the necessity and urgency of the requirement.
Lack of detailed itemization within the provided data makes it impossible to assess the reasonableness of the unit costs or overall value for money.
The contract is not set aside for small businesses, and no subcontracting information is provided, potentially limiting small business participation.

Positive Signals

The contract was competed, with three offers received, indicating some level of market engagement.
The award uses a Firm Fixed Price contract type, which provides cost certainty for the government.
The procuring agency is the General Services Administration (GSA), a central federal procurement body, suggesting adherence to established procurement processes, albeit with unusual parameters in this case.

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls under the Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing sector (NAICS 335210). This sector includes a wide range of products from kitchen appliances to personal care devices. Federal spending in this area typically supports agency operations, facilities management, and specific program requirements. Benchmarking this specific award is challenging due to the unusual award mechanism and short duration, but overall federal spending on manufactured goods is substantial, with agencies like GSA playing a key role in consolidating demand.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses, and the data does not indicate any subcontracting plans. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is likely limited unless the prime contractor, BBMC INC, is itself a small business or actively engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities. Further investigation into BBMC INC's size status and subcontracting practices would be necessary.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for overseeing this contract. As a Purchase Order awarded under SAP, oversight might be less intensive than for larger, more complex contracts. Transparency is limited by the lack of detailed itemization and justification for using SAP. Accountability would primarily rest with GSA's contracting officers to ensure the purchase meets legitimate government needs and represents fair value, despite the unusual circumstances.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Supply Schedule Contracts
Procurement of Office Equipment and Supplies
Federal Government Purchase Orders
Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) Awards

Risk Flags

Potential violation of SAP thresholds
Unusually high per-day expenditure
Extremely short performance period for large value
Lack of detailed itemization
Unknown contractor past performance

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $4,800 to BBMC INC. FLATIRON,ELECTRIC:

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is BBMC INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4,800.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-03. End: 2026-05-03.

What specific electrical appliances were procured under this $4.8 million purchase order, and what quantities were involved?

The provided data does not specify the exact electrical appliances or their quantities. The NAICS code 335210 indicates 'Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing,' which is a broad category. Without a detailed list of items and quantities, it is impossible to assess the appropriateness of the $4.8 million value or the per-unit costs. This lack of specificity is a significant gap in understanding the contract's value proposition and operational necessity. Further inquiry with the General Services Administration (GSA) would be required to obtain this crucial information.

Why was a $4.8 million purchase order awarded under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), which typically has a threshold of $250,000?

The award of a $4.8 million purchase order under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) is highly irregular, as SAP is generally intended for purchases at or below $250,000 (or higher thresholds for specific circumstances like construction or certain disaster relief). There could be several explanations: a potential error in reporting, a specific regulatory exception being invoked (e.g., for urgent and compelling needs that justify a deviation, though this requires strong justification and documentation), or a misunderstanding of SAP limitations by the contracting activity. This deviation from standard procurement practices warrants a review by GSA oversight bodies to ensure compliance and proper use of acquisition authorities.

How does the $160,000 per-day expenditure compare to typical government spending on similar electrical appliances?

A daily expenditure of approximately $160,000 on electrical appliances, as implied by the $4.8 million award over 30 days, is exceptionally high and far exceeds typical government spending patterns for standard electrical appliances. Even for bulk purchases of high-end appliances, such a daily rate would be unusual. This figure suggests either an extremely large quantity of items being procured daily, highly specialized or custom-manufactured appliances, or potentially an issue with the data's interpretation or the contract's structure. Without knowing the specific items and quantities, a direct comparison is difficult, but this rate raises significant value-for-money concerns.

What is the track record of BBMC INC in fulfilling government contracts, particularly those involving electrical appliances?

Information regarding BBMC INC's specific track record with government contracts, especially concerning electrical appliances, is not provided in the data. To assess their reliability and past performance, one would need to consult federal procurement databases like SAM.gov (System for Award Management) for contract history, past performance reviews, and any reported issues or awards. Understanding their experience with similar procurements, their financial stability, and their ability to meet delivery schedules and quality standards is crucial for evaluating the risk associated with this $4.8 million award.

What are the potential risks associated with a 30-day performance period for a contract of this magnitude?

A 30-day performance period for a $4.8 million contract presents several risks. Firstly, it implies an extremely urgent need, which can sometimes lead to rushed decision-making and potentially higher prices. Secondly, it places significant pressure on the contractor, BBMC INC, to deliver a large volume or high-value items within a very short timeframe, increasing the risk of delivery delays, quality issues, or logistical challenges. For the government, the risk is that the urgency might have overshadowed thorough vetting of the contractor or the best possible pricing. This compressed timeline necessitates robust government oversight to ensure timely and satisfactory completion.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Household Appliance Manufacturing › Small Electrical Appliance Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: CLEANING EQPT AND SUPPLIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: MAIN ST LANSEN, BERKSHIRE, MA, 01224

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,800

Exercised Options: $4,800

Current Obligation: $4,800

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Timeline