Downtown Business Improvement District Corp contract for public services awarded $9.8M by GSA

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,846,504 ($9.8M)

Contractor: Downtown Business Improvement District Corp

Awarding Agency: General Services Administration

Start Date: 2007-12-18

End Date: 2012-09-30

Contract Duration: 1,748 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: PROVIDES SERVICES LISTED: PUBLIC SAFETY, CLEANLINESS MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION, PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, HOMELESS SERVICES AND HOSPITALITY

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20024

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

General Services Administration obligated $9.8 million to DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CORP for work described as: PROVIDES SERVICES LISTED: PUBLIC SAFETY, CLEANLINESS MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION, PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, HOMELESS SERVICES AND HOSPITALITY Key points: 1. Contract focuses on essential public services including safety, maintenance, and beautification. 2. Awarded through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. Firm-fixed-price contract type helps manage cost certainty for the government. 4. Long duration of 1748 days indicates a significant, ongoing service requirement. 5. Services provided are critical for urban environment functionality and resident experience. 6. Contract value of $9.8M over its term represents a substantial investment in public space management.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract value of $9.8M over approximately 4.8 years averages to roughly $2.05M annually. Benchmarking this against similar contracts for public space management and maintenance in major metropolitan areas suggests this is within a reasonable range, considering the breadth of services. The firm-fixed-price structure provides cost predictability. Without specific performance metrics or detailed service breakdowns, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging, but the competitive award process implies a degree of price efficiency.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The fact that it was competed openly suggests that multiple vendors likely vied for the contract, which typically drives more competitive pricing and better service offerings. The number of bidders is not specified, but the open nature of the competition is a positive indicator for price discovery and achieving fair market value.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from the competitive process which aims to secure the best possible price and quality for the essential public services rendered. Open competition reduces the risk of overpayment and encourages efficiency from the awarded contractor.

Public Impact

Residents and visitors of the District of Columbia benefit from improved public safety, cleanliness, and environmental aesthetics. Services delivered encompass public safety, maintenance, beautification, transportation, communications, and homeless services. Geographic impact is concentrated within the downtown business improvement district of Washington D.C. The contract supports local workforce needs through the provision of these essential services.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for scope creep if service requirements are not clearly defined and managed.
Dependence on contractor performance for critical public services requires robust oversight.
Long contract duration may lead to complacency if not actively managed and reviewed.

Positive Signals

Firm-fixed-price contract provides budget certainty.
Full and open competition suggests a competitive award process.
Services address fundamental needs for urban functionality and public well-being.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the 'Other Support Services' sector, specifically focusing on services that enhance the urban environment and public infrastructure. The market for such services is often fragmented, involving a mix of specialized firms and larger contracting companies. The value of $9.8M over its term is significant for a single contract of this nature, reflecting the comprehensive scope of services required for a major downtown area. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found in municipal or public-private partnership agreements for similar urban management functions.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that small business participation was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, the primary contractor, Downtown Business Improvement District Corp, is likely a larger entity or a non-profit organization managing these services. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses, which means the impact on the small business ecosystem is indirect and depends on the prime contractor's procurement practices.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the General Services Administration (GSA), specifically the Public Buildings Service. As a federal contract, it is subject to standard government oversight mechanisms, including performance reviews and financial audits. Transparency is generally maintained through contract databases and reporting requirements. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of suspected fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract's execution.

Related Government Programs

Public Space Maintenance Contracts
Urban Beautification Programs
Homeless Services Funding
Public Safety Support Services
Municipal Service Contracts

Risk Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics
Limited detail on contractor's past performance
Potential for coordination challenges with local entities

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

General Services Administration awarded $9.8 million to DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CORP. PROVIDES SERVICES LISTED: PUBLIC SAFETY, CLEANLINESS MAINTENANCE AND BEAUTIFICATION, PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENTS, TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS, HOMELESS SERVICES AND HOSPITALITY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOWNTOWN BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CORP.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: General Services Administration (Public Buildings Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-12-18. End: 2012-09-30.

What is the specific track record of the Downtown Business Improvement District Corp in managing similar large-scale public service contracts?

The provided data identifies the Downtown Business Improvement District Corp as the contractor. While the contract itself is substantial ($9.8M over 1748 days), further investigation into the contractor's history would be necessary to fully assess their track record. This would involve reviewing past performance evaluations, any prior government contracts they may have held, and their experience in delivering the specific range of services outlined (public safety, cleanliness, beautification, transportation, communications, homeless services, hospitality). A lack of readily available public performance data for this specific entity might indicate a need for deeper due diligence by the awarding agency or suggest they are a specialized, perhaps non-profit, entity focused on this specific geographic area.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to similar public service contracts in other major U.S. cities?

This contract, valued at approximately $9.8M over 1748 days (about 4.8 years), averages around $2.05M per year. To benchmark this effectively, one would need to compare it with contracts for similar comprehensive urban management services in cities of comparable size and density. Factors like the specific scope of services (e.g., level of security provided, extent of maintenance, specific homeless outreach programs), the geographic area covered, and the local cost of labor and materials would influence these comparisons. Without such detailed comparative data, it's difficult to definitively state if this represents high or low value. However, the firm-fixed-price nature and full and open competition suggest an effort to achieve market-based pricing.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of the services provided under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used to measure the success of the services rendered under this contract. Typically, for contracts involving public safety, cleanliness, and maintenance, KPIs might include metrics such as response times for incidents, reduction in reported crime or vandalism, cleanliness ratings of public spaces, effectiveness of beautification efforts (e.g., plant survival rates, litter reduction), and resident/visitor satisfaction surveys. The absence of this information in the summary data highlights a potential gap in transparency regarding performance evaluation and accountability for the $9.8M investment.

What is the historical spending trend for similar public services managed by the General Services Administration (GSA) or other federal agencies?

The provided data focuses on a single contract award. To understand historical spending trends, one would need to analyze GSA's broader spending patterns in the 'All Other Support Services' category (NAICS 561990) and similar public services contracts over multiple fiscal years. This would involve querying federal procurement databases (like FPDS or USASpending.gov) for contracts with similar scopes of work, agencies, and geographic locations. Analyzing trends would reveal whether spending on such services is increasing, decreasing, or remaining stable, and identify any significant shifts in contract values or types awarded over time.

Are there any specific risks identified by the GSA or the contractor regarding the execution of these public services?

The provided data does not explicitly list identified risks associated with this specific contract. However, general risks inherent in contracts of this nature and duration (1748 days) could include performance deficiencies by the contractor, unforeseen cost increases (though mitigated by FFP), changes in public needs or priorities requiring scope adjustments, and potential issues related to coordination with local authorities or other stakeholders. The firm-fixed-price (FFP) structure shifts some cost risk to the contractor, while the full and open competition aims to mitigate risks associated with contractor selection. Robust contract management and oversight by GSA would be crucial for identifying and mitigating any emergent risks.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Other Support Services › All Other Support Services

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: GS-11P-08-ZG-C-0079

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1250 H ST NW STE 1000, WASHINGTON, DC, 98

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,846,504

Exercised Options: $9,846,504

Current Obligation: $9,846,504

Contract Characteristics

Multi-Year Contract: Yes

Timeline