Department of Defense awarded $93.2M for office furniture, with a significant portion for furniture manufacturing

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,764,381 ($16.8M)

Contractor: Trade Products Corp.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-01-03

End Date: 2012-08-17

Contract Duration: 2,783 days

Daily Burn Rate: $6.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: 200506!000029!5700!FA2816!61CONS/LGC !GS28F0024M !C!N! !N!FA281605FA009! !20050103!20050930!931910640!931910640!931910640!N!TRADE PRODUCTS CORP !12124 POPE S HEAD RD !FAIRFAX !VA!22030!22412!037!06!EL SEGUNDO !LOS ANGELES !CALIFORNIA!+000010828479!N!N!000000000000!7110!OFFICE FURNITURE !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !* !337214!E! !6! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! ! ! !A! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! !Y!A!N!N! ! ! ! ! ! !000! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22030

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.8 million to TRADE PRODUCTS CORP. for work described as: 200506!000029!5700!FA2816!61CONS/LGC !GS28F0024M !C!N! !N!FA281605FA009! !20050103!20050930!931910640!931910640!931910640!N!TRADE PRODUCTS CORP !12124 POPE S HEAD RD !FAIRFAX !VA!22030!22412!037!06!EL SEGUNDO !LOS … Key points: 1. Value for money appears fair given the long contract duration and the nature of the goods procured. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive market for office furniture. 3. Risk indicators are low, with a firm fixed-price contract type mitigating cost overrun risks. 4. Performance context is limited, but the contract spans over 7 years, indicating sustained demand. 5. Sector positioning is within the broader 'Office Furniture' category, a stable segment of the industrial supply market.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total award amount of $93.2 million over approximately 7.5 years suggests an average annual spend of around $12.4 million. This figure needs to be benchmarked against similar large-scale office furniture procurements by the government. Without specific per-unit cost data or comparisons to market rates for similar furniture items, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides some assurance against unexpected cost increases.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The number of bidders is not specified in the provided data, but the competition type suggests a healthy market. This level of competition is generally expected to drive competitive pricing and ensure that the government receives fair market value for the goods procured.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure the best possible prices for office furniture, preventing potential overpayment and ensuring efficient use of public funds.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely government agencies requiring office furniture for their operations. Services delivered include the provision of office furniture, potentially encompassing a wide range of items from desks to chairs. Geographic impact is broad, as the furniture could be distributed to various government facilities nationwide. Workforce implications may include support for manufacturing jobs within the office furniture industry.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the quality and timeliness of furniture delivery.
The long duration of the contract could lead to potential price stagnation if market conditions change significantly.
Limited information on specific furniture types procured makes it hard to gauge if the most cost-effective options were chosen.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process.
Firm fixed-price contract type helps control costs and provides budget certainty.
The contract was awarded to a single contractor, implying a potentially streamlined delivery process for this specific need.

Sector Analysis

The office furniture sector is a mature industry with established manufacturers and distributors. Government procurement represents a significant market segment. This contract, focusing on office furniture manufacturing and supply, fits within the broader industrial and commercial goods procurement category. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal contracts for furniture, fixtures, and equipment.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. Without this information, it's difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem. However, large contracts can sometimes create opportunities for small businesses as subcontractors to the prime contractor.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms would typically involve contract officers, quality assurance personnel, and potentially agency inspectors general to ensure compliance with contract terms and delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated by contract award databases, but detailed performance reporting is often internal.

Related Government Programs

Office Supplies Procurement
Government Furniture Contracts
Industrial Equipment Manufacturing
Federal Supply Schedule (FSS) Contracts
Department of Defense Procurement

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may lead to price inflexibility.
Lack of detailed itemization hinders precise value analysis.
Potential for furniture obsolescence over the contract term.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.8 million to TRADE PRODUCTS CORP.. 200506!000029!5700!FA2816!61CONS/LGC !GS28F0024M !C!N! !N!FA281605FA009! !20050103!20050930!931910640!931910640!931910640!N!TRADE PRODUCTS CORP !12124 POPE S HEAD RD !FAIRFAX !VA!22030!22412!037!06!EL SEGUNDO !LOS ANGELES !CALIFORNIA!+000010828479!N!N!000000000000!7110!OFFICE FURNITURE !C9E!ALL OTHER SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT !000 !* !337214!E! !6! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is TRADE PRODUCTS CORP..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-01-03. End: 2012-08-17.

What specific types of office furniture were procured under this contract, and how do their costs compare to market rates?

The provided data indicates the National Stock Number (NSN) 7110 pertains to 'Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing.' This suggests a broad category of furniture, likely including items such as desks, chairs, filing cabinets, and partitions. However, the data does not specify the exact mix or quantity of each item procured. Without a detailed breakdown of the furniture types and their associated unit prices, a direct comparison to market rates is not feasible. The total award amount of $93.2 million spread over approximately 7.5 years implies an average annual expenditure. To assess value for money, one would need to analyze the unit prices for specific items against GSA schedules or commercial price lists for comparable quality and features. The firm fixed-price nature suggests the contractor bore the risk of cost fluctuations, which can be advantageous for the government if market prices increase.

How does the total contract value of $93.2 million compare to historical spending on office furniture by the Department of Defense?

The total contract value of $93.2 million awarded to TRADE PRODUCTS CORP. for office furniture is a substantial figure. To contextualize this, historical spending data for office furniture by the Department of Defense (DoD) would be necessary. This would involve analyzing procurement databases over several fiscal years to identify trends and average contract values for similar goods. Without this comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state whether $93.2 million represents an unusually high, low, or typical expenditure. Factors such as the scope of the contract (e.g., specific types of furniture, duration, geographic coverage), inflation, and overall defense spending priorities would influence historical comparisons. A deeper analysis would require access to detailed historical procurement records for the relevant product codes.

What are the potential risks associated with a firm fixed-price contract of this magnitude and duration?

Firm fixed-price (FFP) contracts are generally favored for their cost certainty. However, for a contract of this magnitude ($93.2 million) and duration (approximately 7.5 years), several risks can emerge. If the contractor underestimated costs or experienced unforeseen increases in material or labor prices, they might face reduced profit margins or even losses, potentially impacting their ability or willingness to perform. Conversely, if the initial pricing was overly conservative, the government might end up paying more than necessary if market prices decrease significantly over the contract period. Another risk is contractor performance; an FFP contract doesn't inherently guarantee quality or timely delivery. The government must still actively monitor performance. Furthermore, the long duration could lead to the procured furniture becoming outdated or less suitable for evolving office environments, although this is less of a risk for standard furniture items.

What does the 'full and open competition' designation imply about the contractor selection process and potential for price discovery?

The designation 'full and open competition' signifies that the Department of Defense solicited proposals from all responsible sources, and any responsible prospective contractor was permitted to submit a bid. This is the preferred method of government contracting as it maximizes the pool of potential offerors, thereby fostering robust competition. Robust competition generally leads to better price discovery, meaning the market forces of supply and demand are more likely to result in a price that reflects fair market value. It implies that the government actively sought out multiple bids and evaluated them based on established criteria, which could include price, technical qualifications, and past performance. This process aims to ensure that the contract is awarded to the offeror providing the best value to the government.

Can the provided data indicate the specific agency or sub-agency within the Department of Defense that utilized this office furniture contract?

Yes, the provided data specifies the 'Servicing Agency Name' (sa) as 'Department of the Air Force.' This indicates that the contract was managed or utilized by the U.S. Air Force, a branch within the Department of Defense. While the Department of Defense is the overarching agency listed (ag), the Air Force is the direct entity associated with this particular contract award. This level of detail is crucial for understanding which specific military branch benefited from the procurement and potentially for tracking spending patterns within different service branches.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Office Furniture (including Fixtures) Manufacturing › Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: FURNITURE

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: SUBJECT TO MULTIPLE AWARD FAIR OPPORTUNITY

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 12124 POPES HEAD RD, FAIRFAX, VA, 11

Business Categories: AbilityOne Program Participant, Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS28F0024M

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline