DOI's BIA Facilities Assessment Contract Awarded for $15.85M, Raising Questions on Value and Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,850,861 ($15.9M)

Contractor: Applied Management Engineering Inc

Awarding Agency: Department of the Interior

Start Date: 2005-05-01

End Date: 2011-03-31

Contract Duration: 2,160 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.3K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY VALIDATION OF BIA FACILITIES

Place of Performance

Location: ALBUQUERQUE, BERNALILLO County, NEW MEXICO, 87103

State: New Mexico Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of the Interior obligated $15.9 million to APPLIED MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING INC for work described as: CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY VALIDATION OF BIA FACILITIES Key points: 1. The contract's high value for facility assessment services warrants scrutiny regarding cost-effectiveness. 2. Full and open competition was utilized, but the exclusion of sources may have limited price discovery. 3. Potential risks include overpricing due to the exclusion of sources and the long contract duration. 4. The IT sector is not directly involved, but facility management is crucial for operational continuity.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $15.85M for facility assessment and inventory validation appears high for the services rendered. Benchmarking against similar contracts for building inspection services is difficult without more specific scope details, but the duration and cost suggest a need for closer examination of the pricing structure.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' While competition was present, excluding certain sources could limit the range of bids received and potentially impact the final price achieved. The rationale for excluding sources needs to be clearly understood to assess its effect on price discovery.

Taxpayer Impact: The significant expenditure of $15.85M on facility assessment services raises questions about the optimal use of taxpayer funds, especially if the competition was not fully open.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may be overpaying for facility assessment services due to limited competition. The long contract duration (2005-2011) could lead to outdated assessments if not managed properly. The Bureau of Indian Affairs' infrastructure condition may not be accurately or cost-effectively assessed.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition due to source exclusion
High contract value for assessment services
Long contract duration
Lack of specific performance metrics

Positive Signals

Contract awarded under a competitive process
Fixed-price contract type can control costs

Sector Analysis

The sector involves building inspection and facility management services, crucial for maintaining government infrastructure. Spending benchmarks for such services can vary widely based on the scale and complexity of the facilities. This contract's value is substantial for a single assessment and validation effort.

Small Business Impact

There is no specific indication that small businesses were involved or prioritized in this contract award. The focus appears to be on a large, established firm for a significant service contract.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'exclusion of sources' clause warrants further oversight to ensure it was justified and did not unduly restrict competition. Accountability for the quality and accuracy of the facility assessments is also critical given the contract's value.

Related Government Programs

Building Inspection Services
Department of the Interior Contracting
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education Programs

Risk Flags

Potential for inflated pricing due to limited competition.
Risk of inadequate facility data due to long contract duration.
Lack of transparency regarding source exclusion.
Questionable value for money spent on assessment services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of the Interior awarded $15.9 million to APPLIED MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING INC. CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY VALIDATION OF BIA FACILITIES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is APPLIED MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING INC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-05-01. End: 2011-03-31.

What was the specific justification for excluding certain sources from the competition, and how did this impact the final price and quality of the services received?

The justification for excluding sources is critical for understanding the procurement's integrity. If sources were excluded without a valid, documented reason (e.g., unique capabilities, national security), it could indicate a less competitive environment, potentially leading to higher prices or suboptimal service quality. A thorough review would examine the solicitation documents and any pre-award justifications to ensure fairness and value for taxpayer money.

How does the $15.85M contract value compare to industry benchmarks for similar facility assessment and inventory validation services, considering the scope and duration?

Benchmarking this contract's value requires detailed comparison with similar government or private sector contracts for facility condition assessments and inventory validation. Factors like the number and type of facilities, geographic spread, and specific assessment methodologies influence costs. Without this comparative data, it's difficult to definitively assess if $15.85M represents good value or if taxpayers were potentially overcharged.

What mechanisms were in place to ensure the effectiveness and accuracy of the facility condition assessments and inventory validation performed under this long-term contract?

Ensuring effectiveness and accuracy for a contract spanning from 2005 to 2011 requires robust oversight. Key mechanisms would include clear performance standards, regular progress reviews, independent verification of findings, and a process for addressing discrepancies or deficiencies. The government agency should have had quality assurance personnel actively monitoring the contractor's work throughout the contract period.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Architectural, Engineering, and Related Services › Building Inspection Services

Product/Service Code: SPECIAL STUDIES/ANALYSIS, NOT R&D › SPECIAL STUDIES - NOT R and D

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 200 GOLDEN OAK CT STE 300, VIRGINIA BEACH, VA, 02

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,850,861

Exercised Options: $15,850,861

Current Obligation: $15,850,861

Timeline