HUD's $57.5M mortgage call center contract to Leidos, Inc. awarded in 2008, ran for nearly 7 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $57,538,392 ($57.5M)

Contractor: Leidos, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development

Start Date: 2008-09-30

End Date: 2015-04-30

Contract Duration: 2,403 days

Daily Burn Rate: $23.9K/day

Competition Type: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CALL CENTER FOR SF TO ASSIST CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY MORTGAGE CONCERNS.

Place of Performance

Location: FAIRFAX, FAIRFAX County, VIRGINIA, 22031

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Housing and Urban Development obligated $57.5 million to LEIDOS, INC. for work described as: CALL CENTER FOR SF TO ASSIST CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY MORTGAGE CONCERNS. Key points: 1. The contract aimed to provide critical support for consumer and industry mortgage concerns. 2. Awarded to Leidos, Inc., the contract spanned a significant period, indicating a sustained need for these services. 3. The fixed-price nature of the contract suggests a degree of cost certainty for the government. 4. The contract was a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, implying a pre-established relationship and procurement process. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 519190 points to a broad range of information services. 6. The contract's duration and value suggest a substantial operational footprint for the call center.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total value of $57.5 million over nearly seven years averages to approximately $8.2 million annually. Without specific performance metrics or comparable contracts for similar mortgage assistance call centers, a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the firm-fixed-price structure likely provided budget predictability. The duration suggests the service was deemed necessary and potentially cost-effective over its lifecycle, though a detailed benchmark against private sector call center operations for similar scope would be needed for a more robust evaluation.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The contract was awarded as a 'COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER,' indicating that multiple vendors had the opportunity to bid on this specific order. While the exact number of bidders for this delivery order is not specified, its competitive nature suggests that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sought to leverage market competition to secure favorable terms and pricing. This approach generally leads to better price discovery and potentially lower costs compared to sole-source procurements.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process for this call center service means taxpayers likely benefited from a more efficient allocation of funds, as the government sought the best value through a bidding process.

Public Impact

Consumers and industry stakeholders involved in mortgage concerns directly benefited from the services provided by this call center. The contract supported the Department of Housing and Urban Development's mission to ensure fair housing and access to homeownership. Services likely included information dissemination, guidance on mortgage programs, and assistance with consumer complaints. The call center's operations, based in Virginia (st='VA', sn='VIRGINIA'), had a geographic impact on the workforce employed there. The contract's duration suggests a stable employment base for the personnel operating the call center.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The long duration of the contract (nearly 7 years) could indicate a lack of agile adaptation to evolving mortgage market needs or technological advancements.
Without specific performance data, it's difficult to assess the quality and effectiveness of the consumer and industry assistance provided.
The reliance on a single contractor for such a critical function might pose a risk if the contractor's performance degrades or if they face financial instability.

Positive Signals

The contract was competitively awarded, suggesting an effort to secure good value and service.
The firm-fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, mitigating budget risks.
The sustained need for the service over several years implies it was valuable and met a consistent demand.

Sector Analysis

The Information Services sector (NAICS 519190) encompasses a wide range of data processing, hosting, and related services. This contract falls within the broader IT and business support services market, which is a significant area of federal spending. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve looking at other large-scale call center operations or information dissemination contracts managed by federal agencies. The market for such services is competitive, with numerous large and small businesses capable of providing these solutions.

Small Business Impact

The provided data indicates that small business participation (sb=false) was not a specific set-aside requirement for this contract. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans for small businesses. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem appears limited unless Leidos, Inc. voluntarily engaged small businesses as subcontractors. Further investigation into subcontracting reports would be necessary to fully assess the impact.

Oversight & Accountability

The contract was awarded as a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, suggesting that the initial procurement and subsequent oversight were managed through that overarching framework. Oversight mechanisms would typically include performance monitoring, quality assurance reviews, and financial audits conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS-NG, where basic award details are publicly available. The specific Inspector General jurisdiction would be that of HUD's Office of Inspector General.

Related Government Programs

Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Loan Programs
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Services
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Home Loan Services
Small Business Administration (SBA) Loan Assistance

Risk Flags

Long contract duration may indicate potential for outdated technology or processes if not actively managed.
Lack of specific performance metrics in public data limits assessment of service quality and effectiveness.
Reliance on a single large contractor for a critical function could pose continuity risks.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded $57.5 million to LEIDOS, INC.. CALL CENTER FOR SF TO ASSIST CONSUMER AND INDUSTRY MORTGAGE CONCERNS.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is LEIDOS, 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 $57.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-30. End: 2015-04-30.

What was the specific performance history of Leidos, Inc. on this contract?

Detailed performance history for this specific delivery order is not publicly available in the provided data. However, the contract's duration of nearly seven years (from September 30, 2008, to April 30, 2015) suggests a sustained level of performance that met the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) requirements to warrant continued service. Contracts of this length typically involve regular performance reviews and quality assurance checks by the contracting agency. Without access to internal agency performance reports or contractor feedback, a granular assessment of Leidos's track record on this particular contract remains limited. Generally, large federal contractors like Leidos have extensive experience across various service domains, but specific contract performance can vary.

How does the total contract value compare to similar mortgage assistance call center contracts?

Comparing the $57.5 million total value for this nearly 7-year contract (averaging ~$8.2M/year) to similar federal mortgage assistance call center contracts requires access to a broader dataset of comparable procurements. However, for context, large-scale federal call center operations, especially those involving sensitive consumer information and requiring 24/7 availability or extensive knowledge bases, can range significantly in cost. Factors influencing cost include the number of agents, hours of operation, complexity of inquiries, technology infrastructure, and geographic location. Given the scope implied by supporting 'consumer and industry mortgage concerns' for a major agency like HUD, the value appears within a plausible range for a sustained, large-volume service. However, without direct benchmarks for identical services, a definitive value comparison is difficult.

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

Primary risks associated with this contract likely included: 1) Performance Risk: Failure to provide timely, accurate, and helpful information to consumers and industry stakeholders, potentially leading to dissatisfaction and non-compliance issues. This would be managed through Service Level Agreements (SLAs) and performance monitoring by HUD. 2) Data Security Risk: Handling sensitive mortgage and personal financial information requires robust cybersecurity measures. Mitigation would involve strict adherence to federal data protection regulations (e.g., FISMA) and contractor security protocols. 3) Contractor Viability Risk: Ensuring Leidos, Inc. maintained financial stability and operational capacity throughout the contract term. This is typically monitored through financial health assessments and performance reviews. 4) Scope Creep: Potential for the scope of services to expand beyond the original intent, leading to cost overruns. The firm-fixed-price structure helps mitigate this, but change orders would require careful management. 5) Technological Obsolescence: Ensuring the call center technology remained current. This would be managed through contract modifications or periodic technology refreshes.

How effective was this contract in achieving its stated goal of assisting consumers and industry with mortgage concerns?

The effectiveness of this contract in assisting consumers and industry with mortgage concerns cannot be definitively determined from the provided data alone. The contract's longevity (nearly 7 years) suggests that the services provided were considered valuable and met a persistent need by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Effective call center operations typically involve high customer satisfaction rates, efficient call resolution times, and accurate information delivery. To assess effectiveness, one would need access to metrics such as call volume handled, average handling time, first-call resolution rates, customer satisfaction surveys, and potentially data on the types of mortgage concerns addressed and their outcomes. Without these specific performance indicators, the assessment remains qualitative based on the contract's continuation.

What are the historical spending patterns for mortgage-related call center services by HUD?

The provided data focuses on a single contract awarded in 2008. To analyze historical spending patterns for HUD's mortgage-related call center services, a broader dataset encompassing multiple contracts over a significant period would be necessary. This would involve querying federal procurement databases (like FPDS-NG or USASpending.gov) for contracts awarded by HUD with relevant NAICS codes (e.g., 519190 - All Other Information Services, or potentially customer service/contact center specific codes) and keywords related to 'mortgage,' 'housing assistance,' 'consumer support,' etc. Analyzing these patterns would reveal trends in spending levels, contract durations, types of services procured, and the contractors frequently utilized. It would also help identify periods of increased or decreased investment in such support services, potentially correlating with economic conditions or policy changes affecting the housing market.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Information › Other Information Services › All Other Information Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: R-OPC-23386

Offers Received: 5

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Leidos Holdings, Inc.

Address: 700 N FREDERICK AVE, GAITHERSBURG, MD, 20879

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $57,538,392

Exercised Options: $57,538,392

Current Obligation: $57,538,392

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS00V08PDD0065

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline