Commerce Department awards $64.4M for database access, highlighting a lack of competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $64,387,426 ($64.4M)

Contractor: American Chemical Society

Awarding Agency: Department of Commerce

Start Date: 2010-10-01

End Date: 2015-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,642 days

Daily Burn Rate: $39.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL, SCIENTIFIC DATABASES.

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA (CITY) County, VIRGINIA, 22314, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Commerce obligated $64.4 million to AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY for work described as: ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL, SCIENTIFIC DATABASES. Key points: 1. Value for money is difficult to assess due to the absence of competitive bidding. 2. The contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery. 3. Risk indicators are elevated due to the non-competitive nature of the award. 4. Performance context is limited to the duration of the contract and the services provided. 5. This contract falls within the information services sector, specifically data publishing.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Without a competitive process, it is challenging to benchmark the value for money. The firm fixed-price contract for database access was awarded for $64.4 million over approximately 4.5 years. The lack of competition makes it difficult to assess if the pricing is fair or if alternative, more cost-effective solutions were considered. Further analysis would require understanding the specific databases accessed and their market value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded using a sole-source justification, meaning it was not competed. The 'NOT COMPETED' status indicates that only one vendor was solicited or considered. This approach bypasses the benefits of a competitive bidding process, which typically drives down prices and encourages innovation. The lack of bidders means there's no direct comparison to gauge market responsiveness.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may not be receiving the best possible price for these services due to the absence of competition. A sole-source award limits the government's ability to negotiate favorable terms and potentially pay a premium for the services.

Public Impact

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) benefits from access to commercial and scientific databases. These databases are crucial for patent examination, research, and intellectual property protection. The services support the USPTO's mission to foster innovation and economic growth. The geographic impact is national, supporting the USPTO's operations across the United States.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition raises concerns about potential overpayment and limited vendor options.
Sole-source awards can stifle innovation by not encouraging new market entrants.
Transparency in the justification for a sole-source award could be improved.

Positive Signals

The contract provides essential services for a critical government function (patent examination).
The firm fixed-price structure offers cost certainty for the government.
The contract duration is clearly defined, allowing for planning.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader information services sector, specifically focusing on data aggregation and publishing. The market for commercial and scientific databases is diverse, with various providers offering specialized content. The $64.4 million award is significant, suggesting the procurement of extensive or highly specialized data resources. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend on the specific databases licensed and the scale of access required by other federal agencies.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication that this contract included small business set-asides. As a sole-source award, it is unlikely that subcontracting opportunities for small businesses were a primary consideration in the award process. This contract does not appear to directly benefit the small business ecosystem through set-aside provisions.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the contracting officer and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's internal procurement and program management. The firm fixed-price nature provides some cost control. Transparency regarding the sole-source justification and the specific services rendered is crucial for accountability. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Agency Information Technology Services
Government Database Subscriptions
Intellectual Property Protection Services
Scientific and Technical Information Dissemination

Risk Flags

Sole-source award lacks competitive justification.
Potential for non-competitive pricing.
Limited transparency on specific databases accessed.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Commerce awarded $64.4 million to AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY. ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL, SCIENTIFIC DATABASES.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY.

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 $64.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2010-10-01. End: 2015-03-31.

What specific commercial and scientific databases are being accessed under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact commercial and scientific databases included in this contract. The description 'ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL, SCIENTIFIC DATABASES' is general. To fully assess the value and necessity of this contract, a detailed list of the databases, their publishers, and the scope of access (e.g., number of users, types of data) would be required. This information is critical for understanding the unique value proposition of the American Chemical Society's offering and for comparing it against potential alternatives or direct licensing from database providers.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED,' implying a sole-source justification was used. Common reasons for sole-source awards include unique capabilities of a single provider, urgent and compelling needs where competition is impractical, or when a specific entity is the only source for required goods or services. For this contract, the American Chemical Society might have been deemed the only entity capable of providing access to a specific, proprietary collection of chemical and scientific information essential to the USPTO's mission. A formal justification document, typically available through government contracting portals, would detail the specific rationale.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to similar database access contracts?

Direct comparison of the annual cost is difficult without knowing the specific databases and the level of access provided. The total contract value is approximately $64.4 million over roughly 4.5 years, averaging about $14.3 million per year. To benchmark this, one would need to identify comparable federal contracts for access to large scientific or commercial databases, considering factors like the number of users, the breadth of content, and the specific subject matter. Given the sole-source nature, it's challenging to determine if this represents a competitive market rate.

What is the track record of the American Chemical Society as a federal contractor?

The American Chemical Society (ACS) is primarily known as a scientific society and publisher rather than a traditional federal contractor. While they provide valuable information resources, their role in federal contracting may be specific to information services. Information regarding their past performance on federal contracts, particularly regarding timeliness, quality of service, and adherence to contract terms, would typically be found in contract performance reports (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS) if available for this specific contract or similar ones. Their reputation in the scientific community is strong, but this doesn't automatically translate to proven federal contracting performance.

What are the potential risks associated with relying on a single source for critical scientific databases?

Relying on a single source for critical scientific databases presents several risks. Firstly, there's a risk of price escalation over time, as the government lacks leverage from competing bids. Secondly, dependency on one provider can limit access to alternative or emerging information resources. Thirdly, if the sole-source provider experiences technical issues, financial instability, or changes its service offerings unfavorably, the government's access could be significantly disrupted. Finally, the lack of competition can reduce the incentive for the provider to innovate or maintain the highest levels of service quality.

How does this spending align with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's mission?

This spending directly aligns with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) core mission. The USPTO is responsible for granting patents and registering trademarks, which requires extensive access to prior art, scientific literature, and commercial databases to assess novelty, inventiveness, and distinctiveness. Access to comprehensive databases, such as those likely provided by the American Chemical Society, is essential for patent examiners to conduct thorough searches and make informed decisions. This supports the USPTO's role in fostering innovation, protecting intellectual property, and promoting economic growth.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Software Publishers › Software Publishers

Product/Service Code: BOOKS, MAPS, OTHER PUBLICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2540 OLENTANGY RIVER RD, COLUMBUS, OH, 43202

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Tax Exempt, Nonprofit Organization, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $71,860,426

Exercised Options: $64,387,426

Current Obligation: $64,387,426

Timeline