DoD's $6M contract for administrative services to Concentric Methods, LLC, awarded without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $6,020,606 ($6.0M)

Contractor: Concentric Methods, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2015-04-01

End Date: 2019-03-31

Contract Duration: 1,460 days

Daily Burn Rate: $4.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: BEAUFORT, BEAUFORT County, SOUTH CAROLINA, 29902

State: South Carolina Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $6.0 million to CONCENTRIC METHODS, LLC for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract value of $6.02 million for administrative services appears reasonable given the duration and scope. 2. Awarded without full and open competition, raising questions about potential cost savings. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type mitigates cost overrun risks for the government. 4. The contract duration of approximately four years suggests a stable, ongoing need for these services. 5. The specific services provided under 'administrative services' require further clarification to assess full value. 6. The absence of small business set-aside indicates potential missed opportunities for smaller enterprises.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total contract value of $6.02 million over nearly four years averages to approximately $1.5 million annually. Without specific details on the services rendered, a direct comparison to similar contracts is challenging. However, for administrative support functions, this annual spend is within a plausible range, though the lack of competition prevents a definitive assessment of whether this represents the best possible value for the government. The firm fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was not competed under the Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP) and was awarded as a definitive contract. The provided data indicates it was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP', which often implies a sole-source or limited competition award, especially when only one offer is mentioned. The lack of a competitive process means that the government did not explore multiple vendor options, potentially missing out on better pricing or innovative solutions.

Taxpayer Impact: The absence of a competitive bidding process means taxpayers may not have received the most cost-effective solution available in the market.

Public Impact

The Department of the Navy benefits from administrative support services, enabling smoother operations. The contract likely supports personnel or operational functions within the Navy's administrative framework. The geographic impact is centered around the Department of the Navy's operational areas, potentially nationwide. The contract supports the federal workforce by providing essential administrative functions.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition may lead to higher costs for taxpayers.
Limited transparency into the justification for sole-source award.
Potential for vendor lock-in due to non-competitive award.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Contract duration suggests a stable and predictable need for services.
Award to a single vendor can streamline communication and management.

Sector Analysis

Administrative services are a broad category supporting various government functions. The market for these services is highly competitive, with numerous firms offering solutions ranging from basic clerical support to complex program management. The Department of Defense, as a major federal agency, consistently procures such services to maintain operational efficiency. Benchmarking this contract's value is difficult without specific service details, but the overall federal spending on administrative support is substantial, reflecting its critical role across all sectors.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it appear to have significant subcontracting requirements for small businesses based on the provided flags (sb: false, st: SC). This suggests that opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract were limited or non-existent, potentially impacting the small business ecosystem's access to this particular federal spend.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Department of the Navy's contracting and program management offices. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract type, which obligates the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed price. Transparency is limited by the non-competitive award; the justification for this approach would be documented internally. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Administrative Support Contracts
Navy Operational Support Services
Federal Administrative Services Procurement
Sole-Source Contract Awards

Risk Flags

Potential lack of price competition
Discrepancy between contract description and NAICS code
Sole-source award justification unclear

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $6.0 million to CONCENTRIC METHODS, LLC. IGF::OT::IGF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CONCENTRIC METHODS, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $6.0 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-04-01. End: 2019-03-31.

What specific administrative services were provided under this contract, and how do they align with the Department of the Navy's mission requirements?

The provided data categorizes the contract under 'IGF::OT::IGF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES' and lists the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code as 622110, which corresponds to 'General Medical and Surgical Hospitals'. This is a significant discrepancy. If the NAICS code is accurate, the contract was for hospital services, not general administrative services. If the description 'Administrative Services' is accurate, the NAICS code is likely incorrect or misapplied. Clarification is needed to understand the actual services procured. Assuming the description 'Administrative Services' is correct, these services could range from human resources support, financial management, logistics coordination, or IT support, all crucial for the Navy's operational effectiveness. Without specific deliverables, assessing alignment is speculative.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis, rather than through full and open competition?

The data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP' and awarded as a 'DEFINITIVE CONTRACT' with only one offer ('no': 1). This strongly suggests a sole-source award. Typical justifications for sole-source awards include: urgency of need, unique capabilities of a single contractor, or when only one responsible source exists. Without access to the contract file and the specific justification documentation (e.g., a Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition - JOFOC), the precise reason remains unknown. This lack of competition is a key area for scrutiny regarding value for money.

How does the contract's total value of $6.02 million compare to similar administrative support contracts awarded by the Department of Defense or other federal agencies?

Comparing the total value of $6.02 million requires understanding the scope and duration of services. The contract spanned approximately four years (April 1, 2015, to March 31, 2019), averaging about $1.5 million per year. Federal agencies frequently procure administrative support services. For instance, contracts for similar functions can range from hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on the complexity, number of personnel supported, and specific tasks. Given the firm fixed-price nature and the duration, $1.5 million annually for administrative support is plausible, but without detailed service descriptions and performance metrics, a precise benchmark against comparable contracts is difficult. The lack of competition further complicates a value assessment.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding a contract of this size and duration without competition?

The primary risk associated with awarding a contract without competition is the potential for paying a higher price than would be achieved through a competitive process. This is often referred to as 'lack of price competition'. Other risks include reduced innovation, as contractors may have less incentive to propose novel solutions when they are the only option. There's also a risk of vendor lock-in, where the agency becomes dependent on the incumbent contractor, making future transitions difficult and potentially costly. Furthermore, a lack of transparency surrounding the justification for sole-source awards can erode public trust and raise concerns about fairness and efficiency in government spending.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms were in place to ensure Concentric Methods, LLC delivered satisfactory administrative services?

The provided data does not detail specific performance metrics or oversight mechanisms. However, for a firm fixed-price contract, the primary oversight involves ensuring the contractor meets the defined scope of work and deliverables. The Department of the Navy would have designated a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) responsible for monitoring performance, ensuring compliance with contract terms, and approving invoices for payment. Standard government contract administration processes would apply, including regular communication, progress reviews, and potentially site visits. The effectiveness of these mechanisms depends on the diligence of the COR and the clarity of the contract's performance standards.

Given the NAICS code 622110 (General Medical and Surgical Hospitals), was this contract actually for hospital services, and if so, why was it described as administrative services?

There appears to be a significant discrepancy between the contract description ('IGF::OT::IGF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES') and the assigned NAICS code (622110: General Medical and Surgical Hospitals). If the NAICS code is accurate, the contract was for hospital services, which are fundamentally different from general administrative services. This could imply that the administrative services were in support of a medical facility, or that the description is misleading. Federal contracts require accurate NAICS codes to reflect the primary nature of the work performed. This inconsistency warrants further investigation to determine the true purpose and scope of the contract and ensure appropriate classification and oversight.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Health Care and Social Assistance › General Medical and Surgical Hospitals › General Medical and Surgical Hospitals

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Cape FOX Corporation

Address: 7050 INFANTRY RIDGE RD, MANASSAS, VA, 20109

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $6,744,986

Exercised Options: $6,744,986

Current Obligation: $6,020,606

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline