RWC Consulting Group LLC awarded $14.5M contract for financial services by USDA Forest Service

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,549,322 ($14.5M)

Contractor: RWC Consulting Group LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2006-04-21

End Date: 2009-04-30

Contract Duration: 1,105 days

Daily Burn Rate: $13.2K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: FINANCIAL SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22209

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $14.5 million to RWC CONSULTING GROUP LLC for work described as: FINANCIAL SERVICES Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a non-competitive basis, raising questions about potential cost efficiencies. 2. The contract duration of 1105 days suggests a significant, ongoing need for these services. 3. Virginia is the primary location for this contract, indicating a regional focus. 4. The use of Time and Materials pricing may lead to cost overruns if not closely managed. 5. This award represents a notable portion of spending within its specific service category. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags potential missed opportunities for smaller firms.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $14.5 million over approximately three years for financial services is substantial. Without specific benchmarks for similar services within the Forest Service or comparable agencies, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The Time and Materials (T&M) contract type, while flexible, carries inherent risks of cost escalation compared to fixed-price contracts. The lack of competition further complicates a direct value assessment, as there was no market pressure to drive down prices. Further analysis would require comparing the labor rates and overall cost to industry standards for similar financial consulting services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order. This indicates that the Forest Service likely identified a specific need that they believed only RWC Consulting Group LLC could fulfill, or that circumstances precluded a full and open competition. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no direct price comparison or negotiation driven by market forces. This approach can be justified in certain situations, such as urgent needs or when a contractor possesses unique qualifications, but it limits the government's ability to ensure the most competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: For taxpayers, a sole-source award means there is a reduced likelihood of achieving the lowest possible price. Without competitive bidding, the government may pay a premium for the services rendered, as the contractor faces less pressure to offer cost-effective solutions.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, which receives financial services. These services are crucial for the operational and administrative functions of the agency. The contract's location in Virginia suggests a direct impact on the local economy and workforce in that state. The delivery of financial services supports the agency's mission, which includes managing national forests and grasslands.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Non-competitive award limits price discovery and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not rigorously managed.
Lack of transparency in the justification for sole-source award.
Contract duration is substantial, requiring ongoing monitoring of performance and costs.

Positive Signals

Contract awarded to RWC Consulting Group LLC, suggesting they possess specific expertise or capabilities.
The contract has a defined period of performance, providing a clear timeframe for service delivery.
The award is for financial services, a critical function for government operations.

Sector Analysis

The financial services sector within the federal government encompasses a wide range of support functions, from accounting and auditing to financial planning and analysis. Agencies like the Department of Agriculture rely heavily on these services to manage their budgets, track expenditures, and ensure compliance with financial regulations. Spending in this sector can fluctuate based on agency needs and budget allocations. Comparable contracts would involve other financial consulting or support service agreements within federal agencies, often competed on a task-order basis or through broader indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) vehicles.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have a small business set-aside designation (ss=false, sb=false). The award to RWC Consulting Group LLC, a single entity, does not provide information on their size status. The lack of a small business set-aside means that opportunities for subcontracting with small businesses were not mandated as part of the award. This could limit the direct participation of small businesses in fulfilling the contract requirements, although the prime contractor may still engage them voluntarily.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service contracting officers and program managers. As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle (implied by 'DO'), oversight mechanisms would be tied to the terms of that parent contract. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected. Performance reviews and regular reporting by the contractor are standard accountability measures.

Related Government Programs

Financial Management Services
Professional and Management Support Services
Government Consulting Contracts
Department of Agriculture Financial Operations

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Time and Materials pricing structure
Lack of specific service details

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $14.5 million to RWC CONSULTING GROUP LLC. FINANCIAL SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is RWC CONSULTING GROUP LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Forest Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-04-21. End: 2009-04-30.

What specific financial services were provided under this contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific financial services rendered by RWC Consulting Group LLC. However, given the context of the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service, these services likely encompassed areas such as financial planning, budgeting support, accounting, financial analysis, compliance monitoring, or other administrative financial functions critical to the agency's operations. The 'FINANCIAL SERVICES' categorization is broad, and a deeper dive into the contract's statement of work would be necessary to ascertain the precise deliverables and scope of work.

What is the typical cost for similar financial services contracts within the federal government?

Determining a precise 'typical' cost for federal financial services contracts is challenging due to the wide variation in scope, duration, complexity, and required expertise. Contracts can range from small, specialized consulting engagements to large-scale financial management system implementations. Factors influencing cost include the level of security clearance required, the specific domain knowledge needed (e.g., agricultural finance vs. defense procurement finance), and the geographic location of service delivery. Benchmarking requires comparing contracts with similar service descriptions, contract types (e.g., T&M vs. FFP), and agency contexts. Without more specific details on the services provided by RWC Consulting Group LLC, a direct comparison to a 'typical' cost is speculative.

What are the risks associated with Time and Materials (T&M) contracts for financial services?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts, like the one awarded to RWC Consulting Group LLC, present several risks for the government. The primary risk is cost escalation, as the final price is not fixed and depends on the actual labor hours and material costs incurred by the contractor. This can lead to expenditures exceeding initial estimates if not managed diligently. Effective oversight, including detailed tracking of hours, validation of expenses, and strong negotiation skills by the contracting officer, is crucial to mitigate these risks. Without such controls, T&M contracts can be less cost-effective than fixed-price alternatives, especially for services where the scope of work is well-defined.

Why was this contract awarded on a non-competitive basis?

The data indicates this contract was awarded as a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER.' The specific justification for this non-competitive award is not provided in the data. Common reasons for non-competitive awards include situations where only one responsible source can provide the required services (sole-source), urgent and compelling needs that preclude competition, or when the contract is a follow-on to a previously competed effort where the original contractor is the only viable option. The Forest Service would have had to document and justify the rationale for foregoing full and open competition according to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) guidelines.

What is the track record of RWC Consulting Group LLC with federal contracts?

The provided data indicates that RWC Consulting Group LLC was awarded this specific $14.5 million contract by the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. It also shows a contract duration of 1105 days (approximately 3 years) and a start date of April 21, 2006, with an end date of April 30, 2009. This suggests a history of performing services for the federal government. However, to assess their overall track record, one would need to examine their complete contract history, including past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and the types and values of other contracts they have held across various federal agencies.

How does this contract's value compare to overall federal spending on financial services?

The $14.5 million award to RWC Consulting Group LLC is a significant sum for a single contract. However, when compared to the overall federal spending on financial services, it represents a relatively small fraction. The U.S. federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars annually across various sectors, including professional services, IT, defense, and healthcare. Financial services, while critical, are often a component of broader agency operations or specific support functions. To provide a precise comparison, one would need to aggregate total federal outlays for categories encompassing financial consulting, accounting, auditing, and related services, which would likely dwarf this individual contract's value.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Double Eagle Strategies LLC (UEI: 014160528)

Address: 1580 S MAIN ST STE 105, BOERNE, TX, 21

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $14,549,322

Exercised Options: $14,549,322

Current Obligation: $14,549,322

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS23F0089M

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline