DoD spent $15M on paper products, with limited competition and a high per-unit cost

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,955,722 ($15.0M)

Contractor: Fort James Operating Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2009-07-01

End Date: 2009-09-30

Contract Duration: 91 days

Daily Burn Rate: $164.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: RESALE - PAPER PRODUCTS

Place of Performance

Location: ATLANTA, FULTON County, GEORGIA, 30303

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.0 million to FORT JAMES OPERATING COMPANY for work described as: RESALE - PAPER PRODUCTS Key points: 1. The contract awarded to Fort James Operating Company represents a significant expenditure for paper products. 2. Limited competition for this contract may have impacted pricing and value for money. 3. The short duration of the contract (91 days) suggests a specific, immediate need. 4. The contract falls under the 'Paper (except Newsprint) Mills' industry classification. 5. The firm fixed price contract type indicates a defined cost structure. 6. The contract was awarded as a delivery order, suggesting it's part of a larger framework.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total value of $14.96 million for a 91-day delivery order of paper products appears high. Without specific details on the quantity and type of paper products, a direct comparison to similar contracts is difficult. However, the limited competition and the absence of a clear per-unit cost benchmark raise concerns about whether the government achieved optimal value for its investment. The firm fixed price suggests cost certainty, but the overall price point warrants further scrutiny.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

This contract was not competed openly, indicated by 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION'. The specific reasons for this limited competition are not provided, but it suggests that only one or a very small number of vendors were considered or eligible. This lack of broad competition limits the government's ability to leverage market forces to secure the best possible pricing and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition means taxpayers may have paid a premium, as the potential for multiple bids driving down prices was not realized.

Public Impact

Military personnel and their families using commissary services are the primary beneficiaries of these paper products. The services delivered include the provision of essential paper goods for resale in commissaries. The geographic impact is primarily within Georgia, where the contract was awarded. There are no direct workforce implications mentioned, as this is a supply contract.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpayment.
Lack of detailed per-unit cost makes value assessment difficult.
Short contract duration might indicate reactive procurement rather than strategic planning.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed price provides cost certainty.
Awarded by Defense Commissary Agency, indicating a focus on supporting military families.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader paper manufacturing and distribution sector. The 'Paper (except Newsprint) Mills' NAICS code (322121) indicates a focus on the production of paper. The total spending of approximately $15 million for a short-term supply contract is substantial, suggesting a significant demand for these products within the Defense Commissary Agency's operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale paper product procurements by government agencies or large retail organizations.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not set aside for small businesses, and there is no indication of subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the procurement was likely aimed at larger suppliers capable of meeting the volume and delivery demands. The impact on the small business ecosystem is minimal, as opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract appear to be non-existent.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Defense Commissary Agency's procurement and financial oversight mechanisms. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed price structure, which caps the government's liability. Transparency is limited due to the lack of open competition and detailed public reporting on the specific justifications for the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Commissary Agency Operations
Federal Procurement of Paper Products
Military Resale Services

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Lack of Transparency in Justification
High Contract Value for Short Duration

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.0 million to FORT JAMES OPERATING COMPANY. RESALE - PAPER PRODUCTS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FORT JAMES OPERATING COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Commissary Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2009-07-01. End: 2009-09-30.

What specific types and quantities of paper products were included in this $14.96 million contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact types and quantities of paper products procured under this contract. The contract value of $14.96 million for a 91-day period suggests a substantial volume. However, without a detailed breakdown, it is impossible to perform a precise unit cost analysis or benchmark against industry standards for specific items like paper towels, toilet paper, or printing paper. This lack of specificity hinders a thorough assessment of value for money.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was awarded under 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION'. This classification typically implies that only one responsible source was available or that an exception to full and open competition was invoked. Common reasons include urgent and compelling needs, specialized capabilities of a single contractor, or specific government-required sources. Without further documentation from the Defense Commissary Agency, the precise justification remains unknown, but it significantly limits the potential for competitive pricing.

How does the per-unit cost of these paper products compare to market rates or similar government contracts?

A direct per-unit cost comparison is not feasible with the current data. The contract value is $14.96 million over 91 days, and the specific items and quantities are not detailed. Furthermore, the 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION' status suggests that market rates may not have been fully leveraged. To assess this, one would need to identify the specific paper products (e.g., different grades of paper, types of tissue) and their quantities, then compare those unit prices to GSA schedules, other agency contracts for similar items, or commercial price lists.

What is the track record of Fort James Operating Company in supplying paper products to the federal government?

The provided data identifies Fort James Operating Company as the contractor but does not offer details on their past performance or track record with the federal government, specifically regarding paper product supply. To assess their reliability and experience, one would need to consult federal procurement databases (like FPDS or SAM.gov) for previous contracts awarded to this entity, including contract values, performance reviews, and any history of disputes or issues.

What is the historical spending pattern for paper products by the Defense Commissary Agency?

The provided data only includes information for this single contract from 2009. To understand historical spending patterns, a broader analysis of the Defense Commissary Agency's procurement history for paper products over multiple years would be necessary. This would involve querying databases for all similar contracts, identifying trends in spending volume, average contract values, and the number of competitors over time to discern patterns of demand and procurement strategy.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source or limited-competition award for essential supplies like paper products?

The primary risk associated with sole-source or limited-competition awards for essential supplies is the potential for inflated pricing due to the lack of competitive pressure. This can lead to reduced value for taxpayer money. Other risks include a potential decrease in product quality if the sole provider faces no incentive to maintain high standards, and a lack of innovation. Furthermore, it can create a dependency on a single supplier, which could be problematic if that supplier experiences disruptions.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills › Paper (except Newsprint) Mills

Product/Service Code: MISCELLANEOUS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 133 PEACHTREE STREET NE, ATLANTA, GA, 30303

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,955,722

Exercised Options: $14,955,722

Current Obligation: $14,955,722

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: HDEC0106G3497

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline