HUD's $4M IT hardware and software contract awarded to AMR U.S., Inc. lacked competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,000,000 ($4.0M)

Contractor: AMR U.S., Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2013-05-17

End Date: 2018-05-15

Contract Duration: 1,824 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.2K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: SERVICE TO FULFILL IT HARDWARE, SOFTWARE PRINTER SUPPLIES, AND OTHER PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HUD HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL FIELD OFFICES

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20410

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $4.0 million to AMR U.S., INC. for work described as: SERVICE TO FULFILL IT HARDWARE, SOFTWARE PRINTER SUPPLIES, AND OTHER PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HUD HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL FIELD OFFICES Key points: 1. The contract provided IT hardware, software, and peripherals for HUD headquarters and field offices. 2. Awarded as a definitive contract with a firm-fixed-price structure. 3. The duration of the contract was over 1800 days, indicating a long-term need. 4. The primary contractor, AMR U.S., Inc., received the full award value. 5. The contract's classification code (423430) relates to computer and peripheral equipment wholesale. 6. The lack of competition raises questions about potential overpayment and limited market engagement.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging due to the lack of competitive bids. Without comparison to other offers, it's difficult to ascertain if the $4 million price point represented fair market value. The firm-fixed-price structure suggests that risks were intended to be borne by the contractor, but the absence of competition limits the ability to assess if this pricing was optimized through a competitive process. Further analysis would require comparing the provided equipment and services to similar government procurements or commercial offerings.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed, indicated by 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION'. This suggests that either a sole-source justification was provided, or the procurement was conducted under specific circumstances that precluded open competition. The absence of multiple bidders means there was no opportunity for price discovery through a competitive bidding process, potentially leading to a higher cost for the government than if multiple vendors had vied for the contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium for IT equipment and services due to the lack of competitive pressure to drive down prices. The government did not benefit from the cost savings typically achieved through a robust bidding process.

Public Impact

Federal employees at HUD headquarters and regional field offices benefited from access to necessary IT hardware, software, and peripherals. The contract ensured the continued operation and efficiency of HUD's IT infrastructure. Services delivered included the provision of computer equipment, software licenses, and printer supplies. The geographic impact was national, covering HUD's main office and various field locations across the United States.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may have resulted in inflated pricing.
Limited transparency into the justification for sole-source award.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to long contract duration without competitive re-evaluation.

Positive Signals

Contract fulfilled a clear need for IT equipment and supplies.
Firm-fixed-price contract structure can provide cost certainty if priced competitively.
Awarded to a single entity, potentially simplifying vendor management.

Sector Analysis

The IT hardware and software market is vast and highly competitive, with numerous vendors offering a wide range of products and services. This contract falls within the merchant wholesaler category for computer and computer peripheral equipment. Government spending in this sector is substantial, with agencies constantly seeking to upgrade and maintain their technological infrastructure. The absence of competition in this specific award is unusual for a sector typically characterized by robust market engagement and price sensitivity.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses, nor does it provide information on subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. The sole-source nature of the award further suggests that small businesses were likely not considered or involved in this specific procurement. This represents a missed opportunity to engage the small business sector and foster economic participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve contract officers and potentially program managers within HUD to ensure delivery of goods and services as specified. However, the lack of competition limits the scope for performance-based oversight related to pricing and value. Transparency is reduced due to the non-competitive award. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

IT Hardware Procurement
Software Licensing
Peripheral Equipment Acquisition
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules
IT Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Potential for Overpricing
Limited Transparency

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $4.0 million to AMR U.S., INC.. SERVICE TO FULFILL IT HARDWARE, SOFTWARE PRINTER SUPPLIES, AND OTHER PERIPHERAL EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR HUD HEADQUARTERS AND REGIONAL FIELD OFFICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AMR U.S., INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (Department of Housing and Urban Development).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2013-05-17. End: 2018-05-15.

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

The provided data states the contract was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which typically implies a sole-source justification was invoked. Common reasons for sole-source awards include unique capabilities of a single vendor, urgent and compelling needs where competition is impractical, or specific government requirements that only one vendor can meet. Without access to the contract file or justification documentation, the precise reason remains unknown. However, such justifications are subject to strict Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) guidelines to ensure fair and open competition is pursued whenever possible. The lack of competition here suggests that either a valid justification was approved, or the procurement process may not have fully adhered to competitive principles.

How does the $4 million contract value compare to similar IT hardware and software procurements by other federal agencies?

Comparing this $4 million contract value requires access to a broader dataset of federal IT procurements. However, for a contract spanning approximately five years (May 2013 - May 2018), $4 million for IT hardware, software, and peripherals for a department like HUD is not inherently excessive, but its value is significantly impacted by the lack of competition. In a competitive environment, similar procurements might yield lower prices due to vendor negotiation and market pressures. For instance, agencies leveraging GSA Schedules or participating in large-scale competitive bids often secure significant volume discounts. Without knowing the specific types and quantities of equipment and software procured, a precise benchmark is difficult. However, the absence of competition means this $4 million figure cannot be confidently asserted as representing optimal value for taxpayer dollars.

What were the primary risks associated with this contract, and how were they managed?

The primary risk associated with this contract, given its sole-source nature, is the potential for overpayment due to the lack of competitive pricing. Without competing bids, there's less assurance that AMR U.S., Inc. offered the most cost-effective solution. Another risk could be vendor performance; if AMR U.S., Inc. failed to deliver adequate quality or timely service, the government's options for recourse might be more limited compared to a competitive contract where alternatives could be more readily sought. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) structure shifts cost overrun risks to the contractor, which is a positive risk management element for the government, provided the initial price was fair. However, the lack of competition undermines the fairness of that initial price. Effective management would have required rigorous monitoring of deliverables and adherence to contract terms.

What was the track record of AMR U.S., Inc. with federal contracts prior to and during this award?

Information regarding AMR U.S., Inc.'s specific track record prior to and during this $4 million HUD contract is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive analysis would require examining the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or other government contract databases for previous awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract terminations. Without this historical data, it's difficult to assess whether AMR U.S., Inc. had a proven history of successful performance, competitive pricing, or any red flags that might have influenced the decision-making process, particularly concerning the non-competitive award. A strong past performance record could potentially support a sole-source justification, but it does not inherently guarantee fair pricing.

How did the total spending on IT hardware and software by HUD compare to other agencies during the contract period (2013-2018)?

To determine how HUD's total spending on IT hardware and software compared to other agencies during the 2013-2018 period, one would need to analyze comprehensive federal spending data. This specific contract represents only a fraction of HUD's overall IT budget. Agencies like the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Health and Human Services often have significantly larger IT expenditures due to their scale and complexity. HUD, while a substantial agency, generally operates with a smaller IT budget compared to these larger departments. Analyzing agency-wide IT spending trends, including investments in hardware, software, cloud services, and cybersecurity, would provide context on HUD's relative position and the efficiency of its procurement strategies across all its IT acquisitions during that timeframe.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Wholesale Trade › Professional and Commercial Equipment and Supplies Merchant Wholesalers › Computer and Computer Peripheral Equipment and Software Merchant Wholesalers

Product/Service Code: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT (INCLD FIRMWARE) SOFTWARE,SUPPLIES& SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Solicitation ID: DU100I-13-R-0007

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 11821 PARKLAWN DR STE 204, ROCKVILLE, MD, 20852

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, DoT Certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, Hispanic American Owned Business, Minority Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,000,000

Exercised Options: $4,000,000

Current Obligation: $4,000,000

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline