Department of Education awards $15.8M for logistical support, raising questions on value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,821,784 ($15.8M)

Contractor: Command Decisions Systems & Solutions, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Education

Start Date: 2007-09-06

End Date: 2013-03-31

Contract Duration: 2,033 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.8K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: LOGISTICAL SERVICES TO SUPPORT OPE GRANT REVIEWS/COMPETITIONS

Place of Performance

Location: NORTH CHARLESTON, DORCHESTER County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29420

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Education obligated $15.8 million to COMMAND DECISIONS SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS, INC. for work described as: LOGISTICAL SERVICES TO SUPPORT OPE GRANT REVIEWS/COMPETITIONS Key points: 1. The contract's cost-plus award fee structure may incentivize higher spending without guaranteed performance improvements. 2. Limited competition data suggests potential for suboptimal price discovery. 3. The extended duration of over 5 years warrants scrutiny for adaptability and evolving needs. 4. The contract's focus on administrative support services indicates a role in operational efficiency. 5. Spending is concentrated in South Carolina, suggesting a localized impact. 6. The absence of small business set-asides warrants further investigation into subcontracting opportunities.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $15.8 million over approximately 5.5 years averages around $2.87 million annually. Without specific benchmarks for logistical support services for grant reviews, it's difficult to definitively assess value for money. The cost-plus award fee (CPAF) structure, while allowing for flexibility, can sometimes lead to higher costs if not tightly managed, as the contractor is reimbursed for allowable costs plus a fee that is intended to be adjusted based on performance. Comparing this to similar contracts for administrative and logistical support within the Department of Education or other agencies would be necessary for a more robust valuation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The contract was awarded as a competitive delivery order, indicating that it was likely competed among multiple pre-qualified vendors under a larger indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract or a similar framework. However, the specific details of the competition, such as the number of bidders and the evaluation process, are not provided. A competitive delivery order generally suggests a degree of market research and solicitation, but the level of competition can vary significantly. If it was a broad competition, it would likely lead to better price discovery and potentially more favorable terms for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The competitive nature of the award, even as a delivery order, suggests that taxpayers benefited from some level of price negotiation and comparison among potential providers, potentially leading to a more efficient use of funds compared to a sole-source award.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely the Department of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) grant review and competition processes, which receive logistical support. The services delivered include essential administrative and logistical functions that facilitate the efficient operation of grant programs. The geographic impact is concentrated in South Carolina, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications may include employment opportunities within the contractor's organization in South Carolina.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Cost-plus award fee structure may lead to cost overruns if performance metrics are not rigorously defined and monitored.
Limited transparency on the specific performance metrics tied to the award fee could obscure true value for money.
The extended contract duration might not align with potentially shifting needs in grant review processes.
Lack of explicit small business subcontracting goals could limit opportunities for smaller firms.

Positive Signals

Awarded as a competitive delivery order, indicating some level of market vetting and potential for competitive pricing.
The contract supports critical administrative functions for grant programs, contributing to the agency's mission.
The contractor, Command Decisions Systems & Solutions, Inc., has a history of performing federal contracts, suggesting some level of established capability.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader sector of professional, scientific, and technical services, specifically focusing on administrative and support services for educational institutions. The market for such services is driven by government agencies' needs for specialized support in managing complex programs like grant reviews. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found by analyzing other contracts for similar logistical and administrative support services awarded to educational or research institutions, or by government entities managing large-scale grant programs. The size of this contract ($15.8M) is moderate within the federal contracting landscape for support services.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside, and the 'sb' field is false. This suggests that the primary award was not specifically targeted towards small businesses. Further analysis would be needed to determine if there are subcontracting requirements or opportunities for small businesses within the performance of this contract. Without explicit set-aside goals or reported subcontracting plans, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear, though larger prime contractors are often encouraged or required to utilize small business subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily reside with the Department of Education's contracting officers and program managers responsible for the OPE grant reviews. The contract's cost-plus award fee structure necessitates robust performance monitoring to ensure that the fee is aligned with achieved performance levels. Transparency regarding the performance metrics and award fee determinations would be crucial for accountability. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected in the execution or oversight of the contract.

Related Government Programs

Federal Grant Management Support Services
Administrative Support Contracts
Logistical Services for Government Agencies
Department of Education IT and Administrative Support
Cost-Plus Award Fee Contracts

Risk Flags

Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) structure requires careful monitoring to ensure value for money.
Extended contract duration may limit adaptability to evolving agency needs.
Lack of specific competition details warrants further inquiry into the bidding process.
Potential for concentrated impact in South Carolina may limit broader geographic benefits.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Education awarded $15.8 million to COMMAND DECISIONS SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS, INC.. LOGISTICAL SERVICES TO SUPPORT OPE GRANT REVIEWS/COMPETITIONS

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is COMMAND DECISIONS SYSTEMS & SOLUTIONS, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Education (Department of Education).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-09-06. End: 2013-03-31.

What is the track record of Command Decisions Systems & Solutions, Inc. in performing similar logistical support contracts for federal agencies?

Command Decisions Systems & Solutions, Inc. has a history of performing federal contracts, including those involving administrative and logistical support. While specific details on their performance for similar 'logistical services to support OPE grant reviews/competitions' contracts are not immediately available from the provided data, their past performance on other federal awards can be reviewed through contract databases like SAM.gov or FPDS. A deeper dive into their contract history would reveal the types of services rendered, contract values, agencies served, and any reported performance ratings or issues. This analysis is crucial to assess their capability and reliability in fulfilling the requirements of this specific Department of Education contract.

How does the average annual cost of this contract compare to similar logistical support contracts within the Department of Education or other federal agencies?

The average annual cost of this contract is approximately $2.87 million ($15.8M / 5.5 years). To benchmark this value, one would need to identify comparable contracts for logistical and administrative support services specifically for grant review processes or similar educational program support within the Department of Education or other agencies like the National Science Foundation or NIH. Factors such as the scope of services, geographic location, contract duration, and contract type (e.g., FFP, T&M, CPAF) would need to be considered for a fair comparison. Without access to a comprehensive database of such comparable contracts and their specific terms, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the CPAF structure itself suggests a need for careful oversight to ensure costs remain reasonable relative to performance.

What are the primary risks associated with the Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type used for this award?

The primary risks associated with a Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) contract type, as used in this award, revolve around cost control and performance measurement. For the government, there's a risk that the contractor may incur higher costs than necessary because their allowable costs are reimbursed, and the fee is intended to incentivize performance. If the performance criteria for the award fee are not clearly defined, measurable, and rigorously monitored, the government might end up paying a higher fee than warranted by the actual performance, or the contractor might focus on achieving easily measurable metrics rather than those most critical to mission success. Conversely, contractors may be hesitant to propose innovative or cost-saving solutions if they fear it might jeopardize their ability to meet the award fee criteria. Effective management and clear, objective performance metrics are essential to mitigate these risks.

What is the historical spending pattern for logistical support services related to grant reviews at the Department of Education?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for logistical support services related to grant reviews at the Department of Education would involve examining contract data over several fiscal years. This would entail identifying all contracts awarded for similar services, their values, durations, and the specific offices or programs they supported. Trends in spending could reveal whether this $15.8 million contract represents an increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in such support. Understanding historical patterns can help identify potential efficiencies, areas of increasing need, or shifts in how the Department procures these services. It also provides context for evaluating the current contract's scope and cost relative to past investments.

How does the duration of this contract (over 5 years) impact its value and the Department of Education's flexibility?

The contract duration of over 5 years (2033 days from start to end, approximately 5.5 years) for logistical support services can have several implications. On the positive side, a longer duration can provide stability and predictability for both the contractor and the agency, potentially leading to better relationship building and efficiency gains as the contractor becomes more familiar with the agency's needs. It can also reduce the administrative burden and costs associated with frequent re-competition. However, a long duration also poses risks. The needs of the Department of Education, particularly in the dynamic area of grant reviews, may evolve significantly over 5.5 years. A lengthy contract might lack the flexibility to adapt to new technologies, changing programmatic priorities, or shifts in operational requirements, potentially leading to the government paying for services that are no longer optimal or necessary. Regular reviews and potential modification clauses are crucial to manage this risk.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Educational Services › Educational Support Services › Educational Support Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: TWO STEP

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: COST PLUS AWARD FEE (R)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 13045 HARVEST PL, CLIFTON, VA, 20124

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Emerging Small Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations, Woman Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,821,784

Exercised Options: $15,821,784

Current Obligation: $15,821,784

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: ED06CO0051

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline