Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service awarded $9.8M contract for administrative services, completed in 2011

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,862,703 ($9.9M)

Contractor: Fish and Wildlife Service, United States

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 2006-09-26

End Date: 2011-08-31

Contract Duration: 1,800 days

Daily Burn Rate: $5.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: ARLINGTON, ARLINGTON County, VIRGINIA, 22203

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $9.9 million to FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, UNITED STATES for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract value represents a moderate investment for essential administrative support. 2. Full and open competition suggests a potentially competitive pricing environment. 3. Contract completion over 5 years indicates a stable, long-term service need. 4. Fixed-price contract type shifts performance risk to the contractor. 5. The administrative services sector is crucial for agency operational efficiency. 6. No small business set-aside was utilized, potentially limiting small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract's total value of $9.8 million over approximately five years averages to about $1.97 million annually. Benchmarking this against similar administrative service contracts is challenging without more specific service details. However, the duration and scope suggest a standard rate for such support within a federal agency. The firm fixed-price nature indicates that the contractor bore the risk of cost overruns, which can sometimes lead to higher initial bids but provides budget certainty for the government.

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 presence of two bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this administrative services contract. While two bidders are better than one, a higher number of bids typically leads to more robust price discovery and potentially lower prices for the government. The specific details of the bidding process and the evaluation criteria would further illuminate the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition, even with two bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging competitive pricing. However, a limited number of bidders might mean that the government did not secure the absolute lowest possible price.

Public Impact

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service directly benefited from the administrative services provided, enabling smoother operations. Essential office administrative services were delivered, supporting the agency's mission. The geographic impact is likely concentrated around the agency's primary operational locations in Virginia. Workforce implications include the potential for contractor personnel to support agency staff, though direct government workforce impact is not specified.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders) may have resulted in a higher-than-optimal price.
Lack of small business set-aside could limit opportunities for smaller, specialized firms.
Firm fixed-price contracts can sometimes lead to less flexibility if requirements change significantly.

Positive Signals

Full and open competition provides a baseline for fair pricing.
Contract completion within the specified period suggests successful service delivery.
Fixed-price structure offers budget predictability for the agency.

Sector Analysis

Administrative services are a foundational component of federal agency operations, encompassing a wide range of support functions from clerical tasks to office management. The market for these services is vast and highly competitive, with numerous firms capable of providing support. This contract fits within the broader category of professional and administrative support services, a significant segment of federal contracting. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific tasks performed, but agencies consistently allocate substantial resources to ensure efficient administrative functions.

Small Business Impact

This contract did not include a small business set-aside, meaning it was not specifically reserved for small businesses. Consequently, the primary contractor was likely a larger entity. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, so the extent to which small businesses may have participated indirectly through subcontracting is unknown. The absence of a set-aside suggests that the primary goal was to secure the best value through open competition, rather than prioritizing small business engagement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contracting officers and program managers. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price structure, requiring the contractor to deliver services as specified to receive payment. Transparency is generally facilitated through federal contract databases like FPDS, where award details are recorded. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Office Administrative Services
Professional and Administrative Support Services
Department of the Interior Contracts
Fish and Wildlife Service Operations

Risk Flags

Limited Competition
Potential for Cost Overruns (Contractor Risk)
Lack of Small Business Focus

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $9.9 million to FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, UNITED STATES. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, UNITED STATES.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-26. End: 2011-08-31.

What specific administrative services were included under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract was for 'Office Administrative Services' (NAICS code 561110). While the specific details of the services rendered are not available in the abbreviated data, this NAICS code typically encompasses a broad range of support functions. These can include general office management, clerical support, recordkeeping, mail processing, reception services, scheduling, and potentially basic IT support or facilities management assistance. The exact scope would have been detailed in the contract's Statement of Work (SOW), which would outline the precise duties, deliverables, and performance standards expected from the contractor.

How does the $9.8 million total award compare to typical spending on administrative services by similar agencies?

The total award of $9.8 million over approximately five years (September 2006 to August 2011) equates to an average annual spend of roughly $1.96 million. Comparing this to 'typical' spending is difficult without granular data on agency size, mission complexity, and specific service requirements. However, for an agency like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has a broad national mandate, this level of spending on administrative support appears within a reasonable range for maintaining essential operational functions. Larger agencies or those with more complex administrative needs might spend significantly more, while smaller, more specialized entities might spend less.

What were the key risks associated with this firm fixed-price contract?

The primary risk with a firm fixed-price (FFP) contract lies with the contractor. If the contractor's costs exceed the agreed-upon price due to unforeseen circumstances, inefficient performance, or poor estimation, they absorb the loss. For the government, the main risk is that the contractor might cut corners on quality or service delivery to protect their profit margin if costs rise unexpectedly. Additionally, if the government's needs change significantly during the contract period, the FFP structure can make modifications more complex and potentially costly compared to cost-reimbursement contracts. However, FFP offers strong price certainty for the buyer.

Given the contract's completion date, what can be inferred about the contractor's performance?

The contract was awarded on September 26, 2006, and completed on August 31, 2011, indicating a duration of nearly five years. The fact that the contract reached its scheduled completion date without apparent major issues (like early termination or significant disputes, which are not indicated in the provided data) suggests that the contractor likely met the performance requirements outlined in the contract. Federal agencies typically have mechanisms to address underperformance, so completion implies a level of satisfactory service delivery according to the terms of the firm fixed-price agreement.

What does the limited competition (2 bidders) suggest about the market for these administrative services?

Having only two bidders for this 'Office Administrative Services' contract suggests that the market, at least for this specific requirement and competition, may not have been as broad as anticipated under 'full and open competition.' This could be due to several factors: the specific requirements of the SOW might have been niche, requiring specialized capabilities; the contract's geographic location or security requirements might have limited the pool of eligible bidders; or perhaps the timing of the solicitation coincided with other major contract awards, drawing potential bidders elsewhere. It implies that while competition existed, it was not robust enough to potentially drive prices down significantly.

How has federal spending on administrative services evolved since this contract was awarded in 2006?

Federal spending on administrative services has generally trended upwards since 2006, driven by increasing government operations, technological integration, and the outsourcing of non-core functions. Agencies continue to rely heavily on contractors for administrative support to maintain efficiency and flexibility. While specific figures fluctuate based on budget appropriations and agency priorities, the overall demand for these services remains consistently high. Post-2006, there has also been an increased emphasis on performance metrics, cybersecurity within service delivery, and potentially more sophisticated competition strategies, although the core need for administrative support persists across federal agencies.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Office Administrative Services › Office Administrative Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Government of the United States (UEI: 161906193)

Address: 4401 FAIRFAX DR #MBSP4107, ARLINGTON, VA, 08

Business Categories: Category Business, Government, U.S. National Government, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $9,862,703

Exercised Options: $9,862,703

Current Obligation: $9,862,703

Timeline