Agriculture's Forest Service spent $15.6M on IT support, with IRM Consulting Group Inc. delivering custom programming

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,605,143 ($15.6M)

Contractor: IRM Consulting Group Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2006-01-17

End Date: 2007-09-30

Contract Duration: 621 days

Daily Burn Rate: $25.1K/day

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: CONTRACT SERVICES - TO SUPPORT INFRA PROGRAM

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22209

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $15.6 million to IRM CONSULTING GROUP INC for work described as: CONTRACT SERVICES - TO SUPPORT INFRA PROGRAM Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the fixed-price contract, though specific performance metrics are not detailed. 2. Competition dynamics were limited, with only one bid received, potentially impacting price discovery. 3. Risk indicators are moderate, stemming from the sole-source nature of the award and the short performance period. 4. Performance context is a short-term IT support contract, not a long-term strategic initiative. 5. Sector positioning is within custom computer programming services, a common IT support function.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $15.6 million for approximately 20 months of service suggests a monthly burn rate of around $821,000. Without detailed performance metrics or comparison to similar custom programming contracts, it's difficult to definitively assess value. However, the fixed-price nature provides some cost certainty. The lack of competition, however, raises questions about whether the government secured the best possible price.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning only one vendor, IRM Consulting Group Inc., was solicited. This significantly limits the opportunity for competitive bidding and price negotiation. While sole-source awards can be justified under specific circumstances (e.g., unique capabilities, urgent needs), the provided data does not offer insight into the justification for this approach.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the government does not benefit from the competitive pressure that typically drives down prices.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, which received IT support services. Services delivered included custom computer programming, essential for maintaining and enhancing IT infrastructure. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the Forest Service's operational areas, supporting their IT needs. Workforce implications are related to the IT professionals employed by IRM Consulting Group Inc. to fulfill the contract.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and lack of innovative solutions.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the quality and effectiveness of services rendered.
The sole-source nature of the award warrants scrutiny to ensure it was appropriately justified.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded as a Firm Fixed Price (FFP), providing cost certainty for the government.
The contractor, IRM Consulting Group Inc., was selected, implying they met the agency's requirements at the time of award.
The contract was for a defined period, suggesting a clear scope and expected deliverables.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the Information Technology (IT) sector, specifically under Custom Computer Programming Services (NAICS 541511). This is a broad category encompassing the design, development, and implementation of software and IT solutions. The market for such services is highly competitive, with numerous providers ranging from small specialized firms to large system integrators. The Forest Service's spending on IT support is typical for a large federal agency managing extensive data and operational systems.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, it did not directly benefit small businesses through a set-aside. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or actual subcontracting performance, so the impact on the small business ecosystem through subcontracting is unknown.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) monitoring performance and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price structure, where the contractor is responsible for delivering the agreed-upon services within the set price. Transparency is limited by the sole-source award justification not being publicly detailed. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

IT Services
Custom Software Development
Federal IT Procurement
Forest Service IT Modernization
Department of Agriculture IT Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks transparency and competitive pricing.
Limited performance metrics make value assessment difficult.
Short contract duration may indicate a tactical rather than strategic solution.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $15.6 million to IRM CONSULTING GROUP INC. CONTRACT SERVICES - TO SUPPORT INFRA PROGRAM

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is IRM CONSULTING GROUP INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Forest Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-01-17. End: 2007-09-30.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis to IRM Consulting Group Inc.?

The provided data does not include the specific justification for the sole-source award. Typically, sole-source contracts are awarded when only one responsible source is available or capable of providing the required services. This could be due to unique technical expertise, proprietary technology, or urgent and compelling circumstances. Without further documentation, such as a Justification and Approval (J&A) document, the rationale remains unclear. Federal procurement regulations require agencies to publicly post justifications for sole-source awards above certain thresholds, which would be the primary source for this information.

How does the per-hour or per-labor-category cost of this contract compare to market rates for custom computer programming services?

The provided data does not contain the detailed labor categories, hours, or rates that would allow for a direct comparison to market rates. The total contract value of $15.6 million over approximately 20 months ($780,000 per month) is a high-level figure. To perform a meaningful benchmark, one would need to analyze the specific roles (e.g., senior developer, project manager, junior programmer), their estimated hours, and the negotiated rates against industry salary surveys and commercial pricing for similar IT services. The absence of this granular data prevents a precise per-unit cost comparison.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or service level agreements (SLAs) established for this contract, and how was performance measured?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or service level agreements (SLAs) that were part of this contract. For IT support and custom programming services, typical KPIs might include system uptime, response times for bug fixes, project completion milestones, and adherence to coding standards. Performance measurement would usually involve regular reporting by the contractor and oversight by the agency's COR. Without access to the contract's statement of work (SOW) or performance work statement (PWS), the specific metrics and evaluation methods remain unknown.

What is the track record of IRM Consulting Group Inc. in delivering similar custom computer programming services to federal agencies?

The provided data identifies IRM Consulting Group Inc. as the contractor but does not offer details on their past performance or track record. To assess their reliability and capability, one would need to review their contract history, past performance evaluations (e.g., from the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any awards or debarments. A thorough analysis would involve examining previous contracts of similar scope and value to determine their success in meeting requirements, managing costs, and adhering to schedules.

How does the total spending on custom computer programming services by the Forest Service compare to other agencies of similar size and mission?

The provided data focuses solely on this single contract ($15.6 million) and does not offer a broader spending picture for the Forest Service or comparable agencies. To make such a comparison, one would need access to aggregated federal spending data across multiple agencies and contract vehicles for the NAICS code 541511 (Custom Computer Programming Services) over a relevant period. Benchmarking would involve analyzing total IT spending, the proportion allocated to custom development, and the average contract values within agencies like the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, or other land management agencies within the Department of the Interior.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Custom Computer Programming Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Contractor Details

Address: 10 BEACHSIDE DR, VERO BEACH, FL, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,605,143

Exercised Options: $15,605,143

Current Obligation: $15,605,143

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F0387L

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline