Agriculture's $13.4M ISUITE contract with Sabioso Inc. for IT services shows extended duration and non-competitive award

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $13,457,014 ($13.5M)

Contractor: Sabioso Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2006-03-31

End Date: 2012-10-31

Contract Duration: 2,406 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.6K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: ISUITE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT

Place of Performance

Location: CLEARFIELD, DAVIS County, UTAH, 84015

State: Utah Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $13.5 million to SABIOSO INC. for work described as: ISUITE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT Key points: 1. The contract's duration of over 2000 days suggests a long-term need for ISUITE application development and support. 2. A non-competitive award indicates potential limitations in market exploration or a specific, unfulfilled requirement. 3. The firm-fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but the extended period warrants scrutiny of overall value. 4. Performance context is limited without specific deliverables or performance metrics, making a full value assessment challenging. 5. This contract falls within the 'Other Computer Related Services' NAICS code, a broad category for IT support. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this was not specifically targeted for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is difficult without comparable data for 'ISUITE application development, maintenance, and support' services. The firm-fixed-price structure provides some cost certainty, but the extended period of performance (over 6 years) means that the total expenditure of $13.46 million warrants a review of whether the services provided consistently met evolving needs and market rates. Without more granular data on deliverables and outcomes, it's challenging to definitively assess value-for-money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning it was not openly competed. This typically occurs when a specific vendor possesses unique capabilities, proprietary technology, or when urgent needs arise that cannot be met through a competitive process. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or leverage market dynamics to potentially achieve lower prices.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not have received the benefit of competitive pricing, as the government did not solicit bids from multiple vendors. This could result in a higher overall cost compared to what might have been achieved in an open market scenario.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the users of the ISUITE application within the Department of Agriculture, particularly the Forest Service, who rely on its functionality for their operations. The services delivered include development, maintenance, and ongoing support for the ISUITE application, ensuring its continued availability and performance. The geographic impact is primarily within Utah, where the contract was managed, but the application's use may extend across various USDA operations. Workforce implications are indirect, supporting the IT professionals and end-users who depend on the ISUITE system.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Extended contract duration without clear justification for non-competition could indicate a lack of strategic sourcing or market analysis.
The broad 'Other Computer Related Services' NAICS code makes it difficult to assess if specialized skills were truly required or if more competitive options were overlooked.
Lack of transparency regarding the specific reasons for the sole-source award hinders a full understanding of the procurement decision.
Firm-fixed-price contracts over long periods can sometimes lead to vendor complacency if not actively managed and monitored for performance.

Positive Signals

The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost predictability for the government over the contract's life.
The contract successfully supported the ISUITE application, indicating continuity of essential IT services for the Forest Service.
The long duration suggests a stable, ongoing need that was met by the selected contractor, potentially fostering expertise.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the Information Technology sector, specifically within the 'Other Computer Related Services' category (NAICS 541519). This is a broad classification encompassing a wide range of IT support, development, and maintenance activities. The market for such services is highly competitive, with numerous vendors offering specialized skills. However, specific application development and support contracts, especially those involving legacy systems or proprietary software, can sometimes lead to sole-source or limited competition scenarios if a particular vendor has unique expertise or access.

Small Business Impact

The contract indicates that small business participation was not a specific focus, as the 'sb' (small business) flag is false and it was not awarded under a small business set-aside. This suggests that the procurement was not designed to prioritize or encourage small business involvement. Consequently, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses stemming from this specific award, and its impact on the broader small business IT ecosystem is likely minimal.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer and program managers within the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance of the delivered IT services against the contract's requirements. Transparency is limited due to the non-competitive nature of the award; details regarding the justification for the sole-source award and specific performance metrics are not readily available in the provided data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

IT Application Development Services
IT Maintenance and Support Contracts
Software Development Services
Government IT Modernization Programs
Forest Service IT Procurement

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award raises questions about market research and potential cost savings.
Extended contract duration without clear justification warrants scrutiny of ongoing necessity and value.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes objective assessment of service quality difficult.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $13.5 million to SABIOSO INC.. ISUITE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND SUPPORT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SABIOSO INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Forest Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $13.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-03-31. End: 2012-10-31.

What was the specific justification for awarding this contract non-competitively?

The provided data indicates the contract was a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER'. While the specific justification is not detailed, common reasons for non-competitive awards include: the existence of a sole-source requirement where only one vendor can meet the need (e.g., proprietary software, unique expertise), urgent and compelling circumstances that preclude full and open competition, or when a follow-on contract is awarded to the original vendor under specific conditions. Without further documentation from the agency, the precise reason remains unknown, but it implies that a competitive process was deemed either impractical or unnecessary at the time of award.

How does the $13.46 million total value compare to similar IT support contracts within the USDA or Forest Service?

Direct comparison of the $13.46 million total value is challenging without knowing the specific scope and duration of comparable contracts. However, for IT application development, maintenance, and support services, this amount over a period of approximately six years (from March 2006 to October 2012) suggests a moderate-sized contract. Larger agencies like the USDA often award multi-million dollar IT contracts. To benchmark effectively, one would need to compare it against contracts with similar NAICS codes (541519), service types (development, maintenance, support), and contract lengths within the same or similar federal agencies. The non-competitive nature also complicates direct value comparisons, as market rates might not have been fully explored.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or service level agreements (SLAs) for this contract?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or Service Level Agreements (SLAs) for this contract. Typically, IT service contracts include metrics related to application uptime, response times for support requests, bug resolution timelines, and successful deployment of new features or updates. The absence of this information in the summary data makes it difficult to objectively assess the contractor's performance and the overall effectiveness of the services provided. A thorough review would require accessing the full contract documentation, including any performance work statements or appendices.

What is the track record of Sabioso Inc. with federal contracts, particularly within the Department of Agriculture?

Sabioso Inc. has been awarded federal contracts, including this significant delivery order with the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. Analyzing their broader track record would involve reviewing other contracts awarded to them across various agencies and for different types of services. Factors to consider include contract values, types of awards (competitive vs. non-competitive), performance history (if available through contract performance reports or CPARS), and any past performance issues or disputes. Without access to a comprehensive contract history database, a full assessment of Sabioso Inc.'s track record is limited to the information presented here.

Given the non-competitive award, what risks might the Forest Service have faced regarding vendor lock-in or escalating costs over the contract's duration?

The primary risk associated with a non-competitive award, especially over an extended period like this contract (over 6 years), is vendor lock-in. The Forest Service may have become dependent on Sabioso Inc.'s specific knowledge and capabilities related to the ISUITE application, making it difficult and costly to switch vendors later. Additionally, without the pressure of competition, there's a potential risk of costs escalating over time if not rigorously managed through contract modifications or performance reviews. While the firm-fixed-price structure offers some cost control, the lack of market comparison inherent in a sole-source award means the government might not have secured the most economical pricing available.

How has spending on 'Other Computer Related Services' (NAICS 541519) evolved within the USDA over the period this contract was active?

To assess the evolution of spending on 'Other Computer Related Services' (NAICS 541519) within the USDA during the contract period (2006-2012), one would need to analyze historical federal procurement data. This category is broad and can include a wide array of services. Generally, federal IT spending, including related services, saw fluctuations driven by budget cycles, modernization initiatives, and shifts in technology. It's plausible that spending in this area increased as agencies sought to maintain and update existing systems while also exploring new technological solutions. A detailed analysis would require querying databases like FPDS-NG for spending trends within the USDA under this specific NAICS code for the relevant years.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › ADP AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 189 S STATE ST STE 250, CLEARFIELD, UT, 84015

Business Categories: Category Business, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Small Business, Veteran Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $13,457,014

Exercised Options: $13,457,014

Current Obligation: $13,457,014

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS35F4491G

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline