DoD awards $14.3M housing property management contract to Information Systems & Networks Corp. without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $14,268,341 ($14.3M)

Contractor: Information Systems & Networks Corporation

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-09-14

End Date: 2026-03-13

Contract Duration: 180 days

Daily Burn Rate: $79.3K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MCICOM GF HOUSING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES BRIDGE CONTRACT.

Place of Performance

Location: BETHESDA, MONTGOMERY County, MARYLAND, 20817

State: Maryland Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $14.3 million to INFORMATION SYSTEMS & NETWORKS CORPORATION for work described as: MCICOM GF HOUSING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES BRIDGE CONTRACT. Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, raising questions about potential price overruns and lack of market pressure. 2. The contract's duration of 180 days suggests a bridge action, potentially indicating a gap in long-term planning or a transition phase. 3. Fixed-price contract type offers some cost certainty, but the absence of competition limits the government's ability to secure the best value. 4. The value of this contract, while significant, needs to be benchmarked against similar property management services to assess its reasonableness. 5. Performance context is limited due to the short duration and lack of competitive bidding, making it difficult to evaluate effectiveness. 6. Sector positioning: This contract falls within the broader IT and professional services sector, supporting essential base operations.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $14.3 million contract is challenging without comparable sole-source awards for similar property management services. The firm fixed-price structure provides some cost control, but the lack of competition means the government may not have achieved the most favorable pricing. Further analysis would require comparing the scope of services and the pricing structure to other government or commercial contracts for residential property management in similar geographic areas. The absence of a competitive process inherently limits the ability to definitively assess value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed. This approach is typically used when only one responsible source is available or when urgency dictates. The lack of competition means that multiple bidders were not evaluated, and the government did not benefit from the price discovery mechanisms inherent in a competitive bidding process. This raises concerns about whether the government secured the best possible price and terms.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may be paying a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure. Without competing the requirement, there is a reduced incentive for the contractor to offer the lowest possible price.

Public Impact

Service members and their families residing in government housing managed by MCICOM will benefit from continued property management services. The contract ensures the ongoing provision of essential services such as leasing, maintenance coordination, and tenant relations for residential properties. Geographic impact is primarily focused on areas where MCICOM manages housing, with specific locations in Maryland indicated by the 'ST' and 'SN' codes. Workforce implications are likely to involve the contractor's personnel managing the properties, potentially including maintenance staff and administrative support.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price competition and potentially leads to higher costs for taxpayers.
Short contract duration (180 days) suggests a potential lack of long-term planning or a stop-gap measure.
Lack of transparency in the justification for a sole-source award.
Potential for scope creep if this bridge contract is extended or if the follow-on contract is not awarded promptly.
The contractor's track record on similar sole-source awards needs scrutiny to ensure past performance is adequate.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
Contract ensures continuity of essential housing services for military personnel and families.
The contractor, Information Systems & Networks Corporation, is an established entity, suggesting some level of operational capability.
The award supports critical base operations and quality of life for service members.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically supporting base operations and facilities management for the Department of Defense. The market for property management services is diverse, encompassing both large corporations and smaller specialized firms. While the specific niche of military housing management is specialized, it draws upon broader property management expertise. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other government contracts for base housing management and large-scale residential property operations to assess cost-effectiveness.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). Therefore, there are no direct subcontracting implications for small businesses arising from a small business set-aside. However, the prime contractor may engage small businesses as subcontractors, depending on their own subcontracting plans and the nature of the services required. Analysis of the prime contractor's historical subcontracting performance would be necessary to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will likely be managed by the Department of the Navy, under the broader Department of Defense. Accountability measures will be defined by the contract terms and conditions, including performance standards and reporting requirements. Transparency regarding the sole-source justification and the contractor's performance should be available through federal procurement databases and agency reporting. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Base Operations Support
Military Housing Privatization Initiative
Residential Property Management Services
Government Facilities Management Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition
Short contract duration may indicate planning deficiencies
Limited performance data available for a sole-source bridge contract

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $14.3 million to INFORMATION SYSTEMS & NETWORKS CORPORATION. MCICOM GF HOUSING PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES BRIDGE CONTRACT.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is INFORMATION SYSTEMS & NETWORKS CORPORATION.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Navy).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $14.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-09-14. End: 2026-03-13.

What is the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A sole-source award typically requires a justification, such as the existence of only one responsible source capable of providing the required services, or an urgent and compelling need where competition is not feasible. Without the specific justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), it is impossible to definitively state the reason. However, the short duration (180 days) suggests this might be a bridge contract to maintain services while a longer-term, competed contract is being procured. This is a common scenario when a previous contract expires unexpectedly or a new requirement is being developed.

How does the $14.3 million value compare to similar property management contracts?

Direct comparison of the $14.3 million value is difficult without knowing the exact scope of services, geographic locations, and duration of comparable contracts. However, for a 180-day (approximately 6-month) period, this represents a significant monthly expenditure. For context, large-scale commercial property management contracts can range from a few hundred thousand to millions of dollars annually, depending on the size and complexity of the portfolio. Given this is a sole-source award for military housing, the government may have less leverage on pricing than in a competitive scenario. A detailed benchmark analysis would require access to more granular data on similar DoD housing contracts or commercial equivalents.

What are the primary risks associated with this sole-source, short-term contract?

The primary risks include potential overpayment due to the lack of competitive pricing pressure, and the risk that this bridge contract may become a de facto long-term solution if follow-on procurement is delayed. There's also a risk of service disruption if the contractor's performance is inadequate and transitioning to a new provider becomes necessary. Furthermore, the lack of competition can reduce the incentive for the contractor to innovate or provide exceptional service beyond the minimum contractual requirements. Finally, if the justification for sole-source is weak, it could indicate poor planning or a lack of market research by the agency.

What is Information Systems & Networks Corporation's track record with the federal government?

Information Systems & Networks Corporation (ISN) is a federal contractor. While the provided data does not detail their specific track record for property management, a review of federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) would reveal their contract history, past performance ratings, and any awards or penalties. Their presence as a contractor suggests they have met basic eligibility requirements. However, the quality and relevance of their past performance, especially on similar sole-source or property management contracts, would need to be thoroughly assessed to evaluate their suitability for this role.

What are the implications of the 'NOT COMPETED' status for taxpayer value?

The 'NOT COMPETED' status, indicating a sole-source award, generally implies reduced taxpayer value compared to a competitively procured contract. Competition drives down prices as contractors vie for the award by offering their best terms. Without this pressure, the awarded contractor may not have offered the lowest possible price for the services. Furthermore, the lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore innovative solutions or different service models that might be more cost-effective. This necessitates a strong internal review of the contractor's proposed pricing to ensure it is fair and reasonable, a process that is inherently more challenging without market benchmarks.

How does the firm fixed-price (FFP) contract type mitigate risks in this scenario?

The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract type is generally considered advantageous for the government as it shifts the risk of cost overruns to the contractor. This means the contractor is obligated to complete the work for the agreed-upon price, regardless of their actual costs. In this sole-source scenario, while the FFP structure provides cost certainty for the government regarding the total amount paid, it does not guarantee that the price itself is the lowest achievable. The benefit of FFP is primarily in cost control once the price is set, rather than in achieving the best possible price through negotiation or competition.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Real Estate and Rental and Leasing › Activities Related to Real Estate › Residential Property Managers

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 10411 MOTOR CITY DR STE 700, BETHESDA, MD, 20817

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Minority Owned Business, Not Designated a Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, Indian (Subcontinent) American Owned Business, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,536,683

Exercised Options: $14,268,341

Current Obligation: $14,268,341

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline