EPA's $18.8M furniture contract for Potomac Yards complex awarded to MillerKnoll Inc

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $18,845,709 ($18.8M)

Contractor: Millerknoll Inc

Awarding Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Start Date: 2006-01-17

End Date: 2011-01-16

Contract Duration: 1,825 days

Daily Burn Rate: $10.3K/day

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: EPA FURNITURE FOR POTOMAC YARDS COMPLEX

Place of Performance

Location: ZEELAND, OTTAWA County, MICHIGAN, 49464

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Environmental Protection Agency obligated $18.8 million to MILLERKNOLL INC for work described as: EPA FURNITURE FOR POTOMAC YARDS COMPLEX Key points: 1. Value for money assessed against industry benchmarks for office furniture. 2. Competition dynamics indicate a potentially limited market for specialized office furnishings. 3. Risk indicators include contract duration and potential for price escalation. 4. Performance context is the furnishing of a major federal complex. 5. Sector positioning within the office furniture manufacturing industry.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of $18.8 million for office furniture appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar large-scale government furniture procurements or private sector office fit-outs would be necessary for a precise value-for-money assessment. Factors such as the specific types of furniture, customization, and installation services included will significantly influence the per-unit cost. Without detailed breakdowns, it's challenging to definitively assess if the pricing is competitive.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The competition level for this contract is not specified in the provided data. Typically, large furniture procurements can be competed broadly, but specialized needs or existing relationships might influence the number of bidders. A limited competition could lead to higher prices, while a full and open competition generally fosters better price discovery and value for taxpayers.

Taxpayer Impact: The level of competition directly impacts taxpayer cost. More bidders usually translate to lower prices due to market forces. If this was sole-source or limited, taxpayers may have paid a premium.

Public Impact

Federal employees at the EPA's Potomac Yards complex will benefit from new office furnishings. The contract delivers essential office furniture, contributing to the operational readiness of a key federal facility. Geographic impact is concentrated at the Potomac Yards complex. Workforce implications are minimal, primarily related to the manufacturing and delivery of furniture, not direct federal employment.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Potential for overspending if competition was limited.
Risk of furniture obsolescence or dissatisfaction impacting long-term value.
Dependency on a single contractor for a large-scale furnishing project.

Positive Signals

Addresses a clear need for furnishing a significant federal facility.
Potential for economies of scale in procurement due to the large order size.
Contract duration allows for phased delivery and installation.

Sector Analysis

The office furniture manufacturing sector is diverse, ranging from mass producers to high-end custom designers. Government contracts for furniture are common, often subject to specific regulations and set-asides. This contract falls within the broader manufacturing and professional services categories, with an estimated market size influenced by federal real estate development and renovation cycles. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically be found in GSA schedules or similar large agency procurements.

Small Business Impact

The provided data does not indicate if this contract included small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. If MillerKnoll Inc. is a large business, there may be opportunities for small businesses to participate as subcontractors, depending on the contract's specific terms and the company's subcontracting plan. The absence of explicit set-aside information suggests it may not have been a primary focus for this particular award.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside with the Environmental Protection Agency's contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are usually embedded in the contract terms, including performance standards and delivery schedules. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed spending breakdowns might require specific Freedom of Information Act requests. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

GSA Federal Supply Schedule Contracts
EPA Facilities Management Contracts
Office Furniture Procurement
Federal Building Construction and Renovation

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to contract duration.
Lack of detailed competition information raises concerns about price discovery.
Need for detailed cost breakdown to assess value for money.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Environmental Protection Agency awarded $18.8 million to MILLERKNOLL INC. EPA FURNITURE FOR POTOMAC YARDS COMPLEX

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MILLERKNOLL INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Environmental Protection Agency (Environmental Protection Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $18.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-01-17. End: 2011-01-16.

What specific types of office furniture were procured under this contract, and what was the breakdown of costs per item category?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Office Furniture (except Wood) Manufacturing' (NAICS 337214). However, it does not specify the exact types of furniture (e.g., desks, chairs, filing cabinets, conference tables) or provide a cost breakdown per item category. This level of detail is crucial for a granular value-for-money assessment and for understanding how the $18.8 million was allocated across different furniture needs for the Potomac Yards complex. Without this breakdown, it's difficult to benchmark specific item costs against market rates or identify potential areas of overspending.

How does the awarded price compare to similar large-scale office furniture procurements by other federal agencies or the private sector?

A direct comparison of the $18.8 million contract value to similar procurements is challenging without more specific data on the scope and quality of the furniture. Large federal furniture contracts can vary significantly based on factors like quantity, customization, material quality, and included services (delivery, installation, assembly). To benchmark effectively, one would need to identify contracts with comparable quantities and types of furniture, ideally awarded around the same time period. Benchmarking against GSA schedules for office furniture could provide a baseline, but custom orders or large complex fit-outs often deviate from standard schedule pricing.

What were the key performance metrics and deliverables outlined in the contract, and how was MillerKnoll Inc.'s performance monitored?

The contract details provided do not specify the key performance metrics or deliverables. Typically, such contracts would include requirements related to on-time delivery, quality of materials, adherence to specifications, and successful installation. Performance monitoring would likely involve regular progress reports from the contractor, site inspections by EPA officials, and potentially formal acceptance testing of the delivered furniture. Failure to meet these metrics could result in penalties or contract termination, but the specifics are not available in the summary data.

What is MillerKnoll Inc.'s track record with federal government contracts, particularly for large furnishing projects?

MillerKnoll Inc. is a well-established entity in the furniture industry, formed through the merger of Miller and Knoll. Both legacy companies have historically held numerous federal contracts. Assessing their specific track record for large furnishing projects would require reviewing their past performance on similar government contracts, including any awards, past performance evaluations, and any instances of disputes or contract issues. Their experience suggests a capacity for large-scale projects, but detailed performance history is needed for a comprehensive assessment.

Were there any identified risks associated with this contract, such as delivery delays, quality issues, or cost overruns, and what mitigation strategies were in place?

The provided data does not explicitly list identified risks or mitigation strategies for this contract. However, common risks in large furniture procurements include potential delivery delays due to manufacturing backlogs or supply chain disruptions, quality control issues with materials or assembly, and cost overruns if initial estimates were inaccurate or if unforeseen changes occurred. The contract duration of 1825 days (5 years) also presents a risk of price escalation if not adequately addressed through contract clauses. Mitigation strategies could include phased delivery schedules, stringent quality inspections, and fixed-price elements where possible.

How does this $18.8 million expenditure compare to the EPA's historical spending on facilities and furnishings?

To assess how this $18.8 million expenditure compares to the EPA's historical spending, one would need to analyze the agency's budget allocations and actual expenditures for facilities management, office equipment, and furnishings over several fiscal years. This single contract represents a significant investment, but its proportion relative to the EPA's overall facilities budget would determine its significance. Comparing it to previous large-scale furnishing projects or the cost of equipping new facilities would provide valuable context on whether this represents a typical, increased, or decreased level of investment.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: LEASE/RENT EQUIPMENT › LEASE OR RENTAL OF EQUIPMENT

Contractor Details

Address: 855 E MAIN AVE, ZEELAND, MI, 02

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $18,845,709

Exercised Options: $18,845,709

Current Obligation: $18,845,709

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS28F8049H

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline