GSA awards $73.7M contract to DICK CORPORATION for unspecified services, raising value-for-money questions

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $73,706,670 ($73.7M)

Contractor: Dick Corporation

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2006-04-11

End Date: 2006-09-29

Contract Duration: 171 days

Daily Burn Rate: $431.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: PENNSYLVANIA

State: Pennsylvania Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $73.7 million to DICK CORPORATION for work described as: Key points: 1. The contract's significant value suggests a substantial scope of work, yet the lack of specific service details hinders a precise value assessment. 2. With a full and open competition, the award to DICK CORPORATION implies a competitive process, but the number of bidders is not specified. 3. The short duration of the contract (171 days) may indicate a project with a defined endpoint or a potential for follow-on work. 4. The contract was awarded under a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) type, which typically shifts cost risk to the contractor. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags suggests this was not specifically targeted to small businesses. 6. The contract's broad nature and significant dollar value warrant further investigation into performance metrics and deliverables.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $73.7 million is substantial, but without clear details on the services rendered, it is difficult to benchmark against similar contracts or assess value for money. The firm fixed price structure is a positive indicator for cost control, but the lack of defined deliverables makes a true value assessment challenging. Further analysis would require understanding the specific services provided and their necessity.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. While this suggests a robust competitive environment, the specific number of bids received is not provided, which would offer further insight into the intensity of the competition. A high number of bidders generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The full and open competition process is generally favorable for taxpayers as it aims to secure the best possible pricing through market forces. However, without knowing the number of bidders, it's hard to definitively say if maximum taxpayer benefit was achieved.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the services provided by DICK CORPORATION, though the specific nature of these services is not detailed. The contract supports federal operations managed by the General Services Administration (GSA), Public Buildings Service. The geographic impact is noted as Pennsylvania (PA), suggesting the services were performed or relevant to this state. Workforce implications are tied to the employment generated by DICK CORPORATION to fulfill the contract requirements.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific service details makes it difficult to assess the true value and necessity of the $73.7 million expenditure.
The short contract duration (171 days) for such a large sum raises questions about the project's scope and potential for inefficiencies.
While competed openly, the number of bidders is unknown, which limits the ability to confirm optimal price discovery.
No indication of small business participation or set-asides, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller enterprises.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a fair and accessible bidding process.
Firm Fixed Price contract type shifts cost overrun risk to the contractor.
The contract was awarded by the General Services Administration, a primary federal procurement agency.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broad category of federal services procurement, likely related to facilities management, construction support, or other operational needs managed by the GSA's Public Buildings Service. The General Services Administration is a major procurer of goods and services for the federal government, with significant spending across various sectors. Benchmarking this specific contract is challenging due to the lack of defined services, but GSA's overall spending on facilities and related services runs into billions annually.

Small Business Impact

The contract does not indicate any specific small business set-aside provisions (ss=false, sb=false). This suggests that the procurement was not exclusively targeted towards small businesses. While full and open competition allows for small business participation, the absence of a set-aside means there was no mandated portion for them. The implications for the small business ecosystem depend on whether small businesses were prime contractors or subcontractors, which is not detailed here.

Oversight & Accountability

The General Services Administration (GSA) generally has robust oversight mechanisms for its contracts, including internal audits and program management. The Public Buildings Service, as the awarding entity, would be responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance. Transparency is typically facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, where this award is recorded. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

GSA Public Buildings Service Contracts
Federal Facilities Management Contracts
Construction and Engineering Services
General Services Administration Procurement

Risk Flags

Lack of Service Specificity
High Value, Short Duration
Unknown Number of Bidders
Potential for Undefined Scope

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $73.7 million to DICK CORPORATION. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DICK CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $73.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-04-11. End: 2006-09-29.

What specific services were procured under this $73.7 million contract awarded to DICK CORPORATION?

The provided data does not specify the exact services rendered under this contract. The 'PSC' (Product Service Code) field is empty, and the 'NA' (Nomenclature) field is also blank. This lack of detail is a significant gap in understanding the contract's purpose and value. Given the awarding agency (General Services Administration, Public Buildings Service) and the substantial dollar amount, potential services could range from large-scale construction projects, facility maintenance and operations, architectural and engineering services, to specialized consulting. Without this information, a thorough analysis of performance, value, and necessity is impossible.

How does the $73.7 million award compare to typical spending for similar services by the GSA?

Direct comparison is difficult without knowing the specific services. However, the General Services Administration (GSA) manages a vast portfolio of real estate and procurement, with annual spending in the tens of billions of dollars. Contracts for major construction, renovation, or long-term facility operations can easily reach tens of millions. The $73.7 million figure, while substantial, is within the range of large-scale projects the GSA undertakes. To assess if it's typical, one would need to identify comparable contracts based on service type, scope, and duration within the Public Buildings Service portfolio. The short duration (171 days) for this amount might suggest a focused, high-intensity project rather than a long-term operational contract.

What are the key risks associated with a contract of this magnitude and limited duration?

Key risks include potential cost overruns if the scope is not perfectly defined (though mitigated by FFP), schedule delays impacting critical government operations, and quality issues if performance is rushed. For the government, a significant risk is paying a large sum for services that may not fully meet requirements due to the lack of detailed service description. Contractor performance risk is also present; DICK CORPORATION's track record and capacity to deliver on such a large project within 171 days would be crucial. Furthermore, the short duration might indicate a project that is part of a larger initiative, and any issues here could cascade to subsequent phases.

What does the 'Firm Fixed Price' (FFP) contract type imply for cost control and risk allocation?

A Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type is generally considered favorable for cost control as it establishes a ceiling price that is not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience. This means the contractor assumes the primary risk for any cost overruns. For the government, this provides budget certainty. However, contractors may build in higher contingency amounts into their FFP bids to account for potential risks, which could lead to a higher initial price compared to other contract types like cost-plus. The effectiveness of FFP relies heavily on a well-defined scope of work; ambiguity can lead to disputes or the contractor delivering the minimum required to meet the fixed price.

What is the significance of the contract being awarded in Pennsylvania (PA)?

The designation 'PA' for Pennsylvania indicates the primary geographic location where the contract's services were performed or where the contractor's relevant operations are based. This could imply a specific federal building project, infrastructure work, or service delivery within the state. For the GSA Public Buildings Service, this might relate to the management or maintenance of federal properties located in Pennsylvania. It also suggests potential economic impact within the state through job creation and local spending by DICK CORPORATION and its potential subcontractors.

Given the 'full and open competition', what can be inferred about the contractor selection process?

Full and open competition means that the solicitation was made available to all responsible prospective contractors, and any responsible contractor could submit an offer. This is the preferred method of government contracting as it maximizes competition and is intended to result in the best value for the government. The award to DICK CORPORATION implies that their proposal met the stated requirements and was selected as the most advantageous offer based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the solicitation. However, without knowing the number of offers received or the specific evaluation criteria, it is difficult to assess the degree of competition or the specific factors that led to this award.

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Contractor Details

Parent Company: DCK Worldwide, LLC (UEI: 826879426)

Address: 1900 STATE RTE 51, LARGE, PA, 12

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $74,564,819

Exercised Options: $74,564,819

Current Obligation: $73,706,670

Timeline