DoD's $9.9M contract for communications services awarded to Dwain Fletcher Company shows potential value concerns

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $9,946,111 ($9.9M)

Contractor: Dwain Fletcher Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2004-10-29

End Date: 2010-09-30

Contract Duration: 2,162 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.6K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: 200502!026296!1700!N61339!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6133905C0005 !A!N! !N! ! !20041029!20090930!070319652!070319652!070319652!N!DWAIN FLETCHER COMPANY !5799 BARWICK RD !QUITMAN !GA!31643!53000!095!12!ORLANDO !ORANGE !FLORIDA !+000000050000!N!N!000006670554!R426!COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541430!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !20200930!B! ! !A! !A!U!J!2!004!K! !C!N!Z! ! !N!B!N!N! ! !C! !B!A!000!A!B!N! ! ! ! !1719!N61339!0001! !

Place of Performance

Location: MERRITT ISLAND, BREVARD County, FLORIDA, 32953

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $9.9 million to DWAIN FLETCHER COMPANY for work described as: 200502!026296!1700!N61339!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6133905C0005 !A!N! !N! ! !20041029!20090930!070319652!070319652!070319652!N!DWAIN FLETCHER COMPANY !5799 BARWICK RD !QUITMAN !GA!31643!53000!095!12!ORLANDO !ORAN… Key points: 1. The contract's value appears high relative to its duration and scope, warranting further investigation into cost-effectiveness. 2. Competition was listed as 'full and open after exclusion of sources,' which may indicate a less competitive environment than ideal. 3. The contract's performance period spanned over five years, raising questions about adaptability to evolving communication needs. 4. The fixed-price contract type suggests a defined scope, but the final cost warrants scrutiny against market benchmarks. 5. The specific nature of 'communications services' is broad and requires deeper understanding to assess true value. 6. The contractor's track record and past performance on similar contracts are crucial for a complete value assessment.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The total award amount of $9,946,111.48 for communications services over approximately five years (2162 days) averages to roughly $4,600 per day. Without specific details on the services rendered, it's difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. However, the daily rate seems substantial for general communications services. Further analysis would require comparing the specific deliverables and service levels to industry standards and other government contracts for comparable services to determine if this represents a fair price for the value received.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'full and open competition after exclusion of sources.' This designation is unusual and suggests that while the competition was intended to be broad, specific sources may have been excluded for reasons not immediately apparent. The number of bidders is not specified, but the 'exclusion of sources' clause could imply a limited pool of qualified or eligible bidders, potentially impacting the competitive pressure on pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: The 'exclusion of sources' aspect of the competition could mean that taxpayers did not benefit from the widest possible range of offers, potentially leading to a higher price than if all potential sources had been included.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary of this contract is the Department of Defense, specifically entities requiring communications services. The services delivered likely supported military operations, command and control, or administrative functions through communication infrastructure or support. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the operational areas of the Naval Air Warfare Center and potentially extended to wherever the services were deployed. Workforce implications could include employment for individuals with specialized communication skills, both within the contractor's organization and potentially supporting government personnel.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

The broad nature of 'communications services' makes it difficult to assess if the full value was realized without detailed performance metrics.
The 'exclusion of sources' in the competition raises questions about the breadth of market engagement and potential cost implications.
The contract duration of over five years might not align with rapidly evolving communication technologies, potentially leading to suboptimal solutions or costs.
Lack of specific performance data makes it challenging to definitively assess the contractor's effectiveness and value for money.

Positive Signals

The contract was awarded under a 'full and open' competition framework, indicating an attempt to solicit a wide range of offers.
The use of a Firm Fixed Price contract type generally provides cost certainty for the government, assuming the scope was well-defined.
The contract was awarded to a specific company, Dwain Fletcher Company, suggesting they met the necessary qualifications and requirements.

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls under the Information Technology and Telecommunications sector, specifically focusing on communications services. This sector is characterized by rapid technological advancements and a wide array of service providers, from large corporations to specialized small businesses. Government spending in this area is substantial, supporting everything from basic network infrastructure to advanced secure communication systems. Benchmarking this contract would involve comparing its cost and scope to other government or commercial contracts for similar communication solutions, considering factors like bandwidth, security, and service level agreements.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included a small business set-aside. The contract was awarded to Dwain Fletcher Company, and further investigation would be needed to determine if they are a small business or if subcontracting opportunities were mandated for small businesses. Without this information, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem remains unclear.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this Department of Defense contract would typically be managed by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), responsible for ensuring contractor performance and compliance. Accountability measures would be tied to the contract's terms and conditions, including delivery schedules and service level agreements. Transparency is facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, which record award details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Defense Communications Systems
IT Services Contracts
Naval Air Warfare Center Procurements
Federal Communications Infrastructure

Risk Flags

Potential Value Concerns
Unclear Service Scope
Ambiguous Competition Details
Long Performance Period

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $9.9 million to DWAIN FLETCHER COMPANY. 200502!026296!1700!N61339!NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER !N6133905C0005 !A!N! !N! ! !20041029!20090930!070319652!070319652!070319652!N!DWAIN FLETCHER COMPANY !5799 BARWICK RD !QUITMAN !GA!31643!53000!095!12!ORLANDO !ORANGE !FLORIDA !+000000050000!N!N!000006670554!R426!COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES !S1 !SERVICES !000 !* !541430!E! !3! ! ! ! ! !202

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DWAIN FLETCHER COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Defense Contract Management Agency).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $9.9 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2004-10-29. End: 2010-09-30.

What specific communications services were provided under this contract, and what were the key performance indicators (KPIs)?

The contract identifies the service as 'COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES' with a Product Service Code (PSC) of '541430' (Graphic Design Services), which appears to be a mismatch or an overly broad categorization. Without a more granular description of the services rendered (e.g., network management, satellite communications, secure voice, data transmission, audiovisual support, or graphic design as the PSC suggests), it is impossible to assess the value or appropriateness of the $9.9 million expenditure. Key performance indicators (KPIs) would typically include metrics related to uptime, response times, service quality, and user satisfaction, which are not detailed in the provided data. Understanding the specific deliverables is crucial for any meaningful analysis of cost-effectiveness and contractor performance.

How does the per-day cost of this contract compare to industry benchmarks for similar communications services?

The contract, valued at $9,946,111.48 over 2162 days, equates to an average daily cost of approximately $4,600. Benchmarking this figure requires a precise definition of the 'communications services' provided. If these were standard IT network services, this daily rate could be considered high. However, if the services involved highly specialized, secure, or mission-critical communication systems, such as satellite uplinks, advanced encryption, or real-time intelligence dissemination platforms, the cost might be justifiable. Without specific details on the service scope, technology involved, and service level agreements (SLAs), a direct comparison to industry benchmarks is speculative. Further research into comparable government or commercial contracts for similar specialized communication solutions would be necessary.

What was the rationale behind excluding certain sources from the 'full and open' competition?

The contract's competition type is listed as 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES.' This designation implies that while the procurement was intended to be competed broadly, specific potential offerors were intentionally excluded. The reasons for such exclusions typically relate to stringent security requirements, unique technical capabilities, specific past performance needs, or other specialized qualifications that only a limited number of contractors possess. Without access to the solicitation documents or award decision rationale, the exact reasons for excluding sources remain unknown. This exclusion could potentially limit competition and impact price discovery, suggesting that the government had specific, perhaps non-negotiable, requirements that narrowed the field of eligible bidders.

What is the track record of Dwain Fletcher Company in providing communications services to the federal government?

Dwain Fletcher Company was awarded this $9.9 million contract for communications services by the Department of Defense. To assess their track record, one would need to examine their contract history, including the types of services previously provided, contract values, performance ratings, and any instances of contract modifications, disputes, or terminations. Information on their past performance on similar government contracts, particularly those involving complex communication systems or large dollar values, would be essential. A review of their performance on this specific contract, once completed, would also provide valuable insights into their capabilities and reliability in delivering the contracted services effectively.

How did the final contract value compare to the initial estimated value or ceiling?

The provided data indicates a total award amount ('a') of $9,946,111.48. However, it does not specify an initial estimated value or contract ceiling. This contract was a 'DEFINITIVE CONTRACT' with a 'FIRM FIXED PRICE' type. For firm-fixed-price contracts, the award amount typically represents the agreed-upon price for the defined scope of work. If there was a ceiling or estimated value set during the solicitation phase, comparing the final award to that initial figure would reveal whether the contract was awarded at or below expectations. Without data on the initial estimate or ceiling, it's difficult to assess if the final price represented a favorable outcome relative to initial projections.

Were there any significant contract modifications or overruns during the performance period?

The provided data does not include details on contract modifications, change orders, or whether the final award amount of $9,946,111.48 represented an overrun or was within the initially established ceiling. For a definitive contract with a firm fixed price, the award amount is generally the total agreed-upon price. However, modifications can occur to adjust scope, terms, or price under certain conditions. A thorough analysis would require examining the contract's official file for any amendments or supplemental agreements that altered the original terms. The absence of such information in the summary data prevents an assessment of potential cost escalations or scope changes during the contract's lifecycle.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Specialized Design Services › Graphic Design Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 4

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5799 BARWICK RD, QUITMAN, GA, 31643

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline