Department of Defense awarded $93.2M contract for photographic mapping and printing services to Omni Government Services, L.P

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $11,336,168 ($11.3M)

Contractor: Omni Government Services, L.P.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-06-16

End Date: 2009-02-28

Contract Duration: 2,084 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200311!000422!2100!BK03 !ACA, FORT BENNING !DABT6002C0013 !A!N! !Y!P00001 !20030616!20040531!932377575!932377575!932377575!N!OMNI GOVERNMENT SERVICES, L P !3269 U S HWY 231 SOUTH, S!OZARK !AL!36360!30760!215!13!FORT BENNING !MUSCOGEE !GEORGIA !+000000466404!N!N!000000000000!T099!OTHER PHOTOGRAPHIC MAPPING, PRINTING, & PUB SVCS !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !512110!E! !3! ! !C! ! !99990909!B! ! !A! !A!U!R!2!005!K! !C!Y!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !Z! !B!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: FORT BENNING, CHATTAHOOCHEE County, GEORGIA, 31905

State: Georgia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $11.3 million to OMNI GOVERNMENT SERVICES, L.P. for work described as: 200311!000422!2100!BK03 !ACA, FORT BENNING !DABT6002C0013 !A!N! !Y!P00001 !20030616!20040531!932377575!932377575!932377575!N!OMNI GOVERNMENT SERVICES, L P !3269 U S HWY 231 SOUTH, S!OZARK !AL!36360!30760!215!13!FORT BENNING !MUSCO… Key points: 1. Contract value of $93.2M over its life, with a significant portion obligated early. 2. Awarded under a full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating a competitive process. 3. The contract type is Cost Plus Award Fee, which incentivizes performance but can lead to higher costs. 4. The period of performance spans over 5 years, suggesting a long-term need for these services. 5. The contractor, Omni Government Services, L.P., is based in Ozark, Alabama. 6. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code is 512110, related to Motion Picture and Video Production.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $93.2 million over approximately 5 years averages to about $18.6 million per year. Without specific benchmarks for photographic mapping, printing, and publishing services, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. However, the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure suggests that performance incentives are in place, which could lead to better outcomes but also potentially higher costs if award fees are consistently met. The contract was awarded after exclusion of sources, which might limit direct price comparisons to other similar contracts.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES'. This indicates that while the competition was intended to be open, certain sources were excluded from consideration. The data does not specify the number of bidders or the rationale for exclusion. This procurement method can sometimes lead to less competitive pricing compared to unrestricted full and open competition.

Taxpayer Impact: The exclusion of certain sources may have limited the number of potential bidders, potentially impacting the government's ability to secure the lowest possible price for taxpayers.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Department of the Army, specifically Fort Benning, Georgia, which will receive photographic mapping, printing, and publishing services. These services are crucial for military operations, training, and documentation. The contract supports the operational readiness and logistical needs of military installations. The geographic impact is centered around Fort Benning, Georgia, but the products and services could have broader national security implications.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'Cost Plus Award Fee' contract type can lead to costs exceeding initial estimates if performance targets are aggressively pursued.
The 'after exclusion of sources' clause in the competition type warrants further investigation into the reasons for exclusion and potential impact on competition.
The long performance period of over 5 years requires ongoing monitoring to ensure continued value and relevance of services.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded through a competitive process, suggesting some level of market engagement.
The inclusion of award fees incentivizes contractor performance and potentially higher quality service delivery.
The contract duration indicates a stable, long-term requirement, providing predictability for both the government and the contractor.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader 'Other Services' sector, specifically related to photographic mapping, printing, and publishing. The Motion Picture and Video Production NAICS code (512110) suggests a focus on visual media and reproduction. The market for these services is diverse, ranging from commercial printing companies to specialized government contractors. Federal spending in this area often supports intelligence, training, and public affairs functions within various agencies.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates this contract was not specifically set aside for small businesses (ss=false, sb=false). Therefore, the primary contractor, Omni Government Services, L.P., is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award, which could represent missed opportunities for small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and program management offices at Fort Benning. The Cost Plus Award Fee structure implies performance metrics that would be monitored to determine award fee payments. Transparency would be enhanced by public reporting of performance reviews and award fee determinations, though such details are not provided in the summary data. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Military Intelligence Support Services
Defense Printing and Publishing Services
Visual Information Services
Geospatial Information Services
Command and Control Support Services

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to CPAF structure.
Limited competition due to exclusion of sources.
Need for robust performance monitoring to ensure value.
Contract duration requires ongoing relevance assessment.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $11.3 million to OMNI GOVERNMENT SERVICES, L.P.. 200311!000422!2100!BK03 !ACA, FORT BENNING !DABT6002C0013 !A!N! !Y!P00001 !20030616!20040531!932377575!932377575!932377575!N!OMNI GOVERNMENT SERVICES, L P !3269 U S HWY 231 SOUTH, S!OZARK !AL!36360!30760!215!13!FORT BENNING !MUSCOGEE !GEORGIA !+000000466404!N!N!000000000000!T099!OTHER PHOTOGRAPHIC MAPPING, PRINTING, & PUB SVCS !S1 !SERVICES !1000!NOT DISCERNABLE OR CLASSIFIED !512110!E! !3! ! !C! ! !99990909!B

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is OMNI GOVERNMENT SERVICES, L.P..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $11.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-06-16. End: 2009-02-28.

What is the historical spending pattern for photographic mapping, printing, and publishing services at Fort Benning or within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending for photographic mapping, printing, and publishing services at Fort Benning or within the Department of the Army is crucial for context. Without specific historical data for this exact service category at this installation, we can look at broader trends. Federal spending on printing and related services has generally seen a decline over the past decade due to digitization, but specialized mapping and visual information production for military purposes remains a critical need. Contracts for similar services can range from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars annually across the DoD, depending on the scope and duration. Understanding past contract values, competition levels, and performance outcomes for similar requirements would allow for a more robust benchmark against the $93.2 million awarded here. For instance, if previous contracts of similar scope were awarded for significantly less, or if performance issues were common, it would raise questions about the current award's value. Conversely, if this contract represents a consolidation of services or addresses new technological requirements, the cost might be justified.

How does the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure typically impact the final cost compared to other contract types for similar services?

The Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type allows the contractor to be reimbursed for all allowable costs incurred, plus a fee that is composed of a fixed base fee and an award amount that is contingent upon meeting or exceeding performance objectives. This structure is often used when the government desires a high level of performance and is willing to incentivize it through additional payment. Compared to Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contracts, CPAF generally carries higher risk for the government regarding cost certainty, as the final cost can exceed initial estimates if award criteria are met. However, it can lead to better performance and quality than FFP, especially for complex services where performance is difficult to define precisely upfront. Compared to Cost Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), CPAF places more emphasis on subjective performance evaluations by the government for the award portion of the fee, whereas CPIF often uses objective metrics for cost sharing and fee adjustments. For services like photographic mapping and printing, where quality and timeliness are paramount, CPAF can be effective, but it requires robust government oversight to ensure fair and appropriate award fee determinations.

What are the specific performance objectives tied to the award fee in this contract, and how are they measured?

The specific performance objectives tied to the award fee in this contract are not detailed in the provided summary data. Typically, for a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract, these objectives are outlined in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or a separate Award Fee Plan. They often relate to factors such as timeliness of delivery, quality of products or services, responsiveness to government requests, technical performance, and overall customer satisfaction. Measurement methods can vary widely, including objective metrics (e.g., on-time delivery rates, error percentages) and subjective assessments by the Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) or other government personnel. The government's evaluation of the contractor's performance against these criteria determines the amount of the award fee, if any. Without access to the Award Fee Plan, it is impossible to ascertain the precise metrics and evaluation process used for this specific contract, which is essential for a complete understanding of the value proposition and potential cost drivers.

What is the track record of Omni Government Services, L.P. in performing similar government contracts, particularly those involving photographic mapping and printing?

Omni Government Services, L.P. has a track record of performing government contracts, as evidenced by this award. However, a comprehensive assessment of their performance in similar contracts, especially those specifically involving photographic mapping and printing, requires deeper analysis of their contract history. This would involve reviewing past performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), identifying the types and values of previous contracts they have held, and examining any past performance issues or commendations. Without this detailed history, it's difficult to definitively assess their capability and reliability for this specific requirement. The fact that they were awarded this significant contract suggests they met the government's requirements during the solicitation process, but ongoing monitoring and past performance data are key indicators of future success and value for money.

What does 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' mean in practice, and what are the implications for competition and pricing?

'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' is a specific type of competitive procurement. It means that the solicitation was issued under full and open competition procedures, but certain responsible sources were excluded from the competition. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) outlines conditions under which sources may be excluded, often related to national security, specific capabilities, or prior performance issues. In practice, this means that while multiple bidders could potentially respond, the pool of eligible bidders was intentionally narrowed. The implications for competition and pricing can be mixed. On one hand, it still involves competition, which generally drives better prices and innovation than a sole-source award. On the other hand, excluding potential bidders might reduce the overall number of offers received, potentially leading to less aggressive pricing than if all qualified sources were allowed to compete. The specific reasons for exclusion are critical to understanding the impact on the competitive landscape and the final price achieved.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Motion Picture and Video Industries › Motion Picture and Video Production

Product/Service Code: PHOTO, MAP, PRINT, PUBLICATION › PHOTOGR, MAPPING, PRINTING, PUBLISH

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Contractor Details

Address: 3269 U S HWY 231 SOUTH, S, OZARK, AL, 01

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $5,924,981

Exercised Options: $5,899,982

Current Obligation: $11,336,168

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline