Commerce Department's Patent Office awarded $17.4M for facilities support services to Akima/DTSV, LLC

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $17,389,922 ($17.4M)

Contractor: Akima/Dtsv, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Commerce

Start Date: 2007-09-27

End Date: 2008-08-31

Contract Duration: 339 days

Daily Burn Rate: $51.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS

Sector: Other

Official Description: FUNDING FOR PTOSS2. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE MONTHS OF JANUARY THROUGH THE END DATE FY08 (1/1/08-5/2008)

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA CITY County, VIRGINIA, 22314

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Commerce obligated $17.4 million to AKIMA/DTSV, LLC for work described as: FUNDING FOR PTOSS2. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE MONTHS OF JANUARY THROUGH THE END DATE FY08 (1/1/08-5/2008) Key points: 1. The contract value of $17.4M for a 5-month period suggests a high monthly burn rate, warranting scrutiny of resource allocation. 2. Competition was conducted under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources,' indicating a potentially complex procurement process. 3. The contract's duration of 339 days (approx. 11 months) for the specified period of performance needs further clarification on scope. 4. Performance is in Virginia, a hub for federal contracting, suggesting potential for competitive pricing if market dynamics are favorable. 5. The NAICS code 561210 (Facilities Support Services) is broad, requiring a detailed understanding of the specific services rendered. 6. The award date of September 27, 2007, for a period starting January 1, 2008, indicates significant lead time in contract finalization.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $17.4M over approximately 5 months (January to May 2008) translates to a monthly expenditure of roughly $3.5M. Benchmarking this against similar facilities support contracts requires detailed service scope. Without specific deliverables, it's difficult to assess value for money. The 'labor hours' pricing structure (PT) can sometimes lead to cost overruns if not tightly managed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This specific clause suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, certain sources may have been excluded for reasons not immediately apparent from the data. The number of bidders is not provided, which limits the assessment of competitive intensity.

Taxpayer Impact: A full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices. However, the 'exclusion of sources' element introduces a potential risk of reduced competition and potentially higher costs if the exclusion was not justified.

Public Impact

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) benefits from these services, ensuring the operational continuity of its facilities. Services provided likely include maintenance, security, and general upkeep of USPTO buildings and grounds. The geographic impact is concentrated in Virginia, where the USPTO facilities are located. This contract supports jobs within the facilities management and support services sector in the Virginia region.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The 'exclusion of sources' in a full and open competition needs clarification to ensure no viable competitors were unfairly barred.
The high monthly burn rate ($3.5M) warrants close monitoring to ensure efficiency and prevent cost overruns.
The 'labor hours' pricing model (PT) can be susceptible to scope creep and requires robust oversight to control costs.

Positive Signals

The use of 'full and open competition' indicates an effort to leverage market competition for services.
The contract is awarded to a specific entity (Akima/DTSV, LLC), suggesting a potentially established relationship or proven capability.
The award was made well in advance of the performance period, allowing for structured planning and transition.

Sector Analysis

Facilities Support Services (NAICS 561210) is a significant segment within the broader commercial and government services industry. This contract represents a portion of the USPTO's operational budget dedicated to maintaining its physical infrastructure. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found by analyzing other large federal agencies' contracts for similar facility management services, considering factors like facility size, geographic location, and service complexity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation (ss: false, sb: false) was not a primary set-aside consideration for this specific award. There is no information provided regarding subcontracting plans or their impact on the small business ecosystem. This suggests the primary contractor is likely a large business, and the focus was on fulfilling the core service requirement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) at the USPTO, responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance with contract terms. Accountability measures are embedded in the contract's performance standards and payment terms. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases, though detailed performance reports are often internal. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Facilities Management Contracts
USPTO Operational Support
Government Services Administration (GSA) Contracts
Department of Commerce Procurement

Risk Flags

Potential for reduced competition due to 'exclusion of sources'.
High monthly burn rate requires close performance and cost monitoring.
Labor hours pricing model can increase risk of cost overruns without strict oversight.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Commerce awarded $17.4 million to AKIMA/DTSV, LLC. FUNDING FOR PTOSS2. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE MONTHS OF JANUARY THROUGH THE END DATE FY08 (1/1/08-5/2008)

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 $17.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-27. End: 2008-08-31.

What specific services were included under the 'Facilities Support Services' contract, and how were they quantified for the $17.4M award?

The provided data identifies the NAICS code as 561210 (Facilities Support Services) and the pricing type as 'Labor Hours' (PT). However, it does not detail the specific services rendered. These could range from building maintenance, janitorial services, security, groundskeeping, HVAC, electrical, and plumbing support. The $17.4M award is an estimated total for the period of performance. A precise breakdown of services and their associated labor hour estimates would be necessary to fully understand the scope and justify the cost. Without a detailed statement of work (SOW), it's impossible to determine if the value is commensurate with the services.

What does 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources' mean in this context, and were there justifiable reasons for excluding sources?

This procurement method signifies that the solicitation was intended for all responsible sources (full and open competition). However, the 'exclusion of sources' clause indicates that specific potential offerors were identified and deliberately excluded from the competition. The reasons for exclusion are not provided but could include factors like past performance issues, inability to meet specific technical requirements, or national security concerns. For taxpayers, this clause raises a flag because it can potentially limit competition, which might lead to higher prices if the excluded sources were capable and competitive. A thorough review of the justification for exclusion would be needed to ensure fairness and maximize value.

How does the monthly expenditure of approximately $3.5M compare to industry benchmarks for similar facilities support contracts?

Comparing the monthly expenditure of $3.5M requires detailed information about the scale and scope of the facilities supported by the USPTO. Key factors include the total square footage of buildings, the number of personnel served, the types of specialized equipment requiring maintenance, and the geographic spread of the facilities. Without these specifics, a direct benchmark is challenging. However, for context, large-scale federal facilities management contracts can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars per month, depending on complexity. A high burn rate necessitates rigorous performance monitoring and cost control by the agency to ensure efficiency and prevent waste.

What was the track record of Akima/DTSV, LLC prior to this award, and did it influence the selection?

The provided data does not include information on the past performance or track record of Akima/DTSV, LLC. In a 'full and open competition,' past performance is typically a significant evaluation factor. Agencies assess a contractor's history of meeting contract requirements, managing costs, and adhering to schedules. If Akima/DTSV, LLC was selected, it implies they met or exceeded the agency's criteria for technical capability, past performance, and price. Further investigation into their contract history with the government would be needed to fully assess their reliability and suitability for this role.

What is the historical spending pattern for facilities support services at the USPTO, and how does this $17.4M award fit within that trend?

The provided data only pertains to a single award for a specific period (January-May 2008). To understand historical spending patterns, one would need to examine USPTO's budget and contract awards for facilities support services over multiple fiscal years. This would reveal whether spending has been consistent, increasing, or decreasing, and whether this particular award represents a typical investment or an anomaly. Analyzing trends can help identify potential efficiencies, cost-saving opportunities, or areas where spending may have escalated unexpectedly.

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: 1

Pricing Type: LABOR HOURS (Z)

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: $17,389,922

Exercised Options: $17,389,922

Current Obligation: $17,389,922

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DOC50PAPT0501007

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline