GSA awards $5M for specialized fuel bladders, highlighting potential for high-value niche procurements

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $5,002 ($5.0K)

Contractor: Lyev, LLC

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2026-04-03

End Date: 2026-06-20

Contract Duration: 78 days

Daily Burn Rate: $64/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PAN, DRIP: CAPACITY 3.0 GALLONS; 4.75 INCHES TALL; 17.5 INCHES DIAMETER; 0.295 MIL THICK; SYNTHETIC RUBBER, CRUSH AND CRACK PROOF, DOUBLE FIBER WOVEN REINFORCED WITH OIL RESISTANT POLYETHYLENE RESIN AND MOLYBDENUM DISULFIDE COATING; 6.0 FOOT LONG C

Place of Performance

Location: ROSEVILLE, MACOMB County, MICHIGAN, 48066

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $5,002 to LYEV, LLC for work described as: PAN, DRIP: CAPACITY 3.0 GALLONS; 4.75 INCHES TALL; 17.5 INCHES DIAMETER; 0.295 MIL THICK; SYNTHETIC RUBBER, CRUSH AND CRACK PROOF, DOUBLE FIBER WOVEN REINFORCED WITH OIL RESISTANT POLYETHYLENE RESIN AND MOLYBDENUM DISULFIDE COATING; 6.0 FOOT LONG C Key points: 1. The contract value of $5.00M suggests a significant investment in specialized equipment. 2. The 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' status indicates a non-standard procurement process, warranting further scrutiny. 3. The short performance period (78 days) may point to urgent needs or a pilot program. 4. The specific material composition (synthetic rubber, double fiber woven reinforced) suggests a high-performance, durable product. 5. The award to LYEV, LLC, a single entity, raises questions about the breadth of market engagement. 6. The contract falls under the Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing NAICS code, which seems incongruous with the product description.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more information on comparable fuel bladders. The $5.00M award for a 78-day duration suggests a high per-diem cost. The lack of competition further complicates a value assessment, as there's no market-driven price discovery. The specific technical requirements, such as crush and crack proofing and oil resistance, likely contribute to a higher unit cost, but the overall value proposition remains unclear without a detailed cost breakdown or comparison to similar specialized items.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), and the data indicates it was a sole-source award. This means that only one vendor, LYEV, LLC, was solicited or considered for this procurement. Without a competitive bidding process, it is difficult to ascertain if the government received the best possible pricing or if alternative solutions were overlooked. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces for cost savings.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure. The government missed an opportunity to explore a wider range of suppliers and potentially secure a more cost-effective solution.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely entities requiring specialized fuel storage solutions, potentially in military, aerospace, or industrial sectors. The contract will deliver high-capacity (3.0 gallons) fuel bladders with specific durability and resistance features. The geographic impact is not specified but is likely tied to the operational locations of the end-user agency. Workforce implications are minimal, as this is a procurement of goods rather than services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpricing and limited vendor options for future needs.
The NAICS code mismatch (Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing) is a significant red flag requiring clarification.
The short duration and high value could indicate an urgent, potentially rushed, procurement process.

Positive Signals

The product specifications indicate a high-quality, durable item designed for demanding applications.
The General Services Administration (GSA) is involved, suggesting adherence to established procurement standards, despite the sole-source nature.
The award is a Purchase Order, a common and efficient method for acquiring goods.

Sector Analysis

The procurement of specialized fuel bladders falls within the broader manufacturing sector, specifically components for industrial or defense applications. While the NAICS code provided (332216 - Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing) appears to be a mismatch, the product itself suggests a market for high-performance, durable fluid containment systems. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found within defense or aerospace procurement data for specialized equipment, where such items are often critical for operational readiness. The market size for such niche products can vary significantly based on specific technological requirements and end-user demand.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a factor in this procurement, as the 'sb' field is false and the contract was not competed under SAP, which often includes small business set-asides. There is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This sole-source award to LYEV, LLC, therefore, does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Federal Acquisition Service. As a sole-source award, scrutiny would focus on the justification for not competing the requirement and the reasonableness of the price. Transparency is limited due to the lack of a competitive process. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Fuel Systems Procurement
NASA Spacecraft Component Procurement
Department of Energy Fuel Storage Solutions
Industrial Fluid Handling Equipment Contracts

Risk Flags

NAICS Code Mismatch
Sole-Source Justification Unclear
Potential for Overpricing Due to Lack of Competition
Limited Market Research Indicated

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $5,002 to LYEV, LLC. PAN, DRIP: CAPACITY 3.0 GALLONS; 4.75 INCHES TALL; 17.5 INCHES DIAMETER; 0.295 MIL THICK; SYNTHETIC RUBBER, CRUSH AND CRACK PROOF, DOUBLE FIBER WOVEN REINFORCED WITH OIL RESISTANT POLYETHYLENE RESIN AND MOLYBDENUM DISULFIDE COATING; 6.0 FOOT LONG C

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LYEV, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $5,002.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-03. End: 2026-06-20.

What is the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' and was awarded as a Purchase Order. However, it does not explicitly detail the justification for a sole-source award. Typically, sole-source procurements require a formal justification, such as the unique capability of a single contractor, urgent and compelling circumstances, or when only one source is reasonably available. Without this specific justification, it is difficult to assess the necessity of bypassing the competitive bidding process. Further investigation into GSA's procurement records would be needed to uncover the rationale provided by the agency at the time of the award.

How does the unit cost of these fuel bladders compare to similar products in the market?

A direct comparison of unit cost is not possible with the given data. The contract value is $5.00M for an unspecified quantity of 3.0-gallon fuel bladders with specific material and durability requirements. The short duration (78 days) and the nature of the product suggest a potentially high unit cost due to specialized manufacturing and materials (synthetic rubber, double fiber woven reinforced, oil resistant polyethylene resin, molybdenum disulfide coating). To benchmark, one would need to identify comparable contracts for similar capacity and specification fuel bladders, ideally from competitive procurements, and analyze their unit pricing. The absence of competition here makes such a benchmark difficult and raises concerns about price reasonableness.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for specialized fuel bladders?

The primary risks associated with a sole-source award include potential overpricing due to the lack of competitive pressure, limited innovation from a single supplier, and a reduced ability to adapt to changing market conditions or technological advancements. Taxpayers may bear a higher cost than if the contract had been competed. Furthermore, reliance on a single source can create supply chain vulnerabilities if the contractor faces production issues or goes out of business. The government also misses the opportunity to discover potentially more cost-effective or technologically superior solutions that other vendors might offer.

Is the NAICS code 332216 (Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing) appropriate for this procurement?

The provided NAICS code 332216, 'Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing,' appears to be a significant mismatch for a contract involving specialized fuel bladders described as being made of synthetic rubber with double fiber woven reinforcement. Fuel bladders are typically classified under manufacturing codes related to rubber products, plastics, or specialized containers, such as NAICS 326199 (All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing) or potentially codes within the defense industrial base if for military use. This discrepancy raises a red flag regarding the accuracy of the contract data or the procurement process itself, suggesting a potential administrative error or a misunderstanding of the product's nature.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar fuel bladders by the General Services Administration?

The provided data does not include historical spending patterns for similar fuel bladders by the GSA. This specific award is for $5.00M over a short 78-day period. To assess historical spending, one would need to query federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending) for contracts with similar product descriptions (fuel bladders, flexible tanks, etc.), relevant NAICS codes (excluding the apparent mismatch), and agencies like GSA or other relevant entities (e.g., DoD). Analyzing past contract values, durations, competition levels, and awardees would provide context on whether this $5.00M award represents a typical investment, an increase, or a deviation from historical norms for such items.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Cutlery and Handtool Manufacturing › Saw Blade and Handtool Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: HAND TOOLS

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: 20815 KRAFT BLVD, ROSEVILLE, MI, 48066

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $5,002

Exercised Options: $5,002

Current Obligation: $5,002

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Timeline