Commerce Department's Patent Office awards $48.7M for facilities support, with 3 bidders competing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $48,653,158 ($48.7M)

Contractor: Akima/Dtsv, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Commerce

Start Date: 2004-12-29

End Date: 2007-12-31

Contract Duration: 1,097 days

Daily Burn Rate: $44.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ADMINISTRATIVE/FACILITIES SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS.

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22201

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Commerce obligated $48.7 million to AKIMA/DTSV, LLC for work described as: ADMINISTRATIVE/FACILITIES SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS. Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the firm-fixed-price structure and duration. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a healthy level of interest with three bidders. 3. Risk indicators are low due to the established nature of facilities support services. 4. Performance context is within standard operational support for a government agency. 5. Sector positioning is in administrative and facilities support for intellectual property services.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of approximately $48.7 million over three years suggests a moderate annual spend. Benchmarking against similar facilities support contracts for federal agencies of comparable size and scope would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. However, the firm-fixed-price contract type generally provides cost certainty. The awarded amount is within a reasonable range for comprehensive facilities management services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition after exclusion of sources, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit offers. With three bidders participating, the competition level suggests a reasonable degree of market interest and potential for price discovery. The presence of multiple bidders helps ensure that the government receives competitive pricing and a range of service options.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of this award is beneficial for taxpayers, as it likely drove down costs and encouraged the selected contractor to offer competitive terms to secure the business.

Public Impact

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) benefits from consistent and reliable facilities support services. Services delivered include essential maintenance, operations, and administrative support for USPTO facilities. The geographic impact is primarily within Virginia, where the USPTO facilities are located. Workforce implications include the potential for employment opportunities within the contractor's organization to fulfill these support roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for vendor lock-in if contract renewals are not competitively re-bid.
Ensuring consistent service quality across the contract duration requires diligent oversight.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost predictability.
Full and open competition suggests a robust bidding process.
Multiple bidders indicate market interest and potential for competitive pricing.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader facilities support services sector, which is a critical component of government operations. The market for these services is substantial, encompassing a wide range of activities from building maintenance to administrative support. The USPTO's need for these services is tied to its mission of processing and protecting patents and trademarks, requiring well-maintained and functional office spaces. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found across agencies requiring similar levels of facility management.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, and the contractor, AKIMA/DTSV, LLC, is likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information regarding subcontracting plans for small businesses within this award. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small business participation is mandated or encouraged through subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically be managed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm-fixed-price contract, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services. Transparency is generally maintained through contract award databases, though specific performance metrics and oversight reports may not always be publicly accessible.

Related Government Programs

Federal Facilities Management Contracts
Administrative Support Services
Government Building Operations
Patent and Trademark Office Operations

Risk Flags

Potential for scope creep if not managed tightly.
Dependence on contractor performance for critical facility operations.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Commerce awarded $48.7 million to AKIMA/DTSV, LLC. ADMINISTRATIVE/FACILITIES SUPPORT SERVICES FOR PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AKIMA/DTSV, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Commerce (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $48.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-12-29. End: 2007-12-31.

What is the historical spending trend for facilities support services at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?

Analyzing historical spending for facilities support at the USPTO requires access to multi-year contract data. While this specific award covers 2004-2007, understanding the trend would involve examining prior and subsequent contracts for similar services. Factors influencing spending include facility size, operational complexity, and any major infrastructure projects. Without a broader dataset, it's difficult to establish a definitive trend, but the $48.7 million over three years suggests a consistent, significant investment in maintaining the USPTO's operational environment. This figure can be compared to the agency's overall budget to gauge the proportion allocated to facilities support.

How does the per-unit cost of services under this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities support?

Determining a precise per-unit cost comparison is challenging without detailed service breakdowns (e.g., cost per square foot maintained, cost per janitorial hour, cost per maintenance task). The contract is a firm-fixed-price award, meaning the total price is set, and the contractor assumes the risk of cost overruns. To benchmark, one would need to identify comparable facilities in terms of size, complexity, and geographic location, and then compare the total contract value or estimated annual spend against market rates for those specific services. Given the $48.7 million total award over three years, the average annual spend is approximately $16.2 million. This figure needs to be contextualized against the USPTO's facility footprint and service requirements to assess its competitiveness.

What is the track record of AKIMA/DTSV, LLC in performing similar federal facilities support contracts?

AKIMA/DTSV, LLC, as a contractor, would have a performance history with federal agencies. Assessing their track record involves reviewing past performance evaluations, contract awards, and any documented issues or successes on similar facilities support contracts. Agencies typically maintain performance information that can be accessed through government databases or past performance questionnaires. A positive track record on comparable contracts would indicate a lower risk for this award, suggesting reliability and capability in delivering the required services. Conversely, a history of performance issues would raise concerns about the contractor's ability to meet USPTO's needs effectively.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of this facilities support contract?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for facilities support contracts typically focus on service delivery, responsiveness, and operational efficiency. Examples include response times for maintenance requests, uptime of critical building systems (HVAC, electrical), cleanliness standards, preventative maintenance completion rates, and customer satisfaction surveys from USPTO staff. The contract's success is measured against these predefined metrics, often tied to performance-based payment structures or award fees. Diligent oversight by the USPTO is crucial to track these KPIs and ensure the contractor is meeting or exceeding expectations throughout the contract period.

What is the potential impact of this contract on the small business ecosystem, given it was not a small business set-aside?

Since this contract was awarded under full and open competition and is not designated as a small business set-aside, its direct impact on the small business ecosystem is limited to potential subcontracting opportunities. The primary awardee, AKIMA/DTSV, LLC, may or may not have significant subcontracting goals for small businesses. Without specific subcontracting plans detailed in the award documentation, it's difficult to quantify the direct benefit to small businesses. However, the overall federal contracting landscape aims to provide opportunities for small businesses, and agencies often track overall small business participation across all contract types.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Nana Regional Corporation Inc (UEI: 079253761)

Address: 13777 BALLANTYNE CORPORATE PL, CHARLOTTE, NC, 28277

Business Categories: Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $48,653,158

Exercised Options: $48,653,158

Current Obligation: $48,653,158

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DOC50PAPT0501007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline