Department of Defense spent over $15.5M on miscellaneous durable goods, awarded via full and open competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,595,502 ($15.6M)

Contractor: Small Business Consolidated Reporting

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2008-09-30

End Date: 2008-09-30

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: MISCELLANEOUS GPC PURCHASES

Place of Performance

Location: DAYTON, GREENE County, OHIO, 45433

State: Ohio Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.6 million to SMALL BUSINESS CONSOLIDATED REPORTING for work described as: MISCELLANEOUS GPC PURCHASES Key points: 1. The contract focused on 'Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers', indicating a broad range of potential goods procured. 2. Awarded as a delivery order, suggesting it was part of a larger contracting vehicle. 3. The fixed-price contract type generally offers cost certainty for the government. 4. The duration of the contract was zero, implying it was a single delivery or a short-term requirement. 5. The procurement was conducted under full and open competition, suggesting a robust bidding process. 6. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates this was not specifically targeted for small business participation.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of $15.5 million for 'Miscellaneous GPC Purchases' is challenging without specific details on the goods procured. However, the fixed-price contract type suggests an attempt to control costs. The lack of a defined duration (0 years) implies a single, potentially short-term need, making direct comparison to longer-term contracts difficult. Further analysis would require understanding the specific items purchased and their market value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition', meaning all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this requirement. While multiple bidders are positive, the exact number can influence price discovery. A higher number of bidders typically leads to more competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by fostering a competitive environment that can drive down prices and encourage innovation.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are likely Department of Defense entities requiring miscellaneous durable goods. The services delivered encompass the provision of various durable goods, the specifics of which are not detailed. The geographic impact is likely concentrated within the operational areas of the Department of the Air Force, which is the specific agency. Workforce implications are minimal as this contract focuses on goods procurement rather than services requiring significant labor.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific itemization makes it difficult to assess if the $15.5M was spent efficiently on necessary goods.
The zero duration raises questions about the long-term planning or the nature of the requirement.
Without knowing the specific goods, it's hard to determine if alternative, more cost-effective solutions were overlooked.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, which generally promotes fair pricing.
The fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty to the government.
Multiple bidders (3) indicate some level of market interest and potential for competitive pricing.

Sector Analysis

The procurement falls under the broad category of wholesale trade for durable goods (NAICS 423990). This sector encompasses a wide array of businesses that distribute manufactured goods. The Department of Defense, as a major consumer, frequently procures such goods to support its operations. Comparable spending benchmarks would depend heavily on the specific types of durable goods acquired, ranging from office equipment to specialized tools.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have been specifically set aside for small businesses, as indicated by 'sb': false. The presence of 3 bidders suggests that both large and small businesses may have participated, but without specific subcontracting data or set-aside information, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem is unclear. Further investigation into subcontracting plans would be needed to assess the flow-down to small businesses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would fall under the Department of Defense's internal procurement regulations and potentially the Inspector General's office if any irregularities were suspected. Transparency is limited by the lack of detailed information regarding the specific goods purchased. Accountability would be tied to the delivery of goods as per the contract terms and the fixed-price agreement.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Procurement
Miscellaneous Goods Procurement
Wholesale Trade Contracts
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules (potential vehicle)

Risk Flags

Lack of Specificity in Goods Procured
Zero Contract Duration Raises Questions
Limited Competition (3 Bidders)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.6 million to SMALL BUSINESS CONSOLIDATED REPORTING. MISCELLANEOUS GPC PURCHASES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SMALL BUSINESS CONSOLIDATED REPORTING.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Defense (Department of the Air Force).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.6 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-09-30. End: 2008-09-30.

What specific types of 'Miscellaneous Durable Goods' were procured under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 423990, 'Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers.' However, the specific items purchased are not detailed in the summary data. This category is very broad and could include anything from office furniture and equipment to specialized tools, hardware, or even certain types of machinery components. Without a detailed list of goods or a more specific product service code (PSC), it is impossible to ascertain the exact nature of the procurement. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to assess the necessity, appropriateness, or value for money of the expenditure.

How does the $15.5 million expenditure compare to typical spending for similar miscellaneous durable goods by the Department of Defense?

Direct comparison of the $15.5 million expenditure is difficult without knowing the specific items procured. The Department of Defense procures a vast array of goods, and 'miscellaneous durable goods' is an extremely broad category. If the goods were standard office supplies or equipment, $15.5 million might represent a significant volume or a long-term supply agreement. If the goods were highly specialized or mission-critical components, this amount could be relatively modest. Benchmarking would require identifying comparable contracts for similar items or quantities, which is not possible with the current level of detail. The zero duration also suggests this was a one-time or short-term buy, making it different from ongoing supply contracts.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) or acceptance criteria for the goods delivered under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the key performance indicators (KPIs) or acceptance criteria for this contract. As a fixed-price contract for goods, the primary acceptance criteria would likely revolve around the correct quantity, quality, and timely delivery of the specified durable goods. However, the lack of detail on the goods themselves means that the specific quality standards, performance metrics, or functional requirements are unknown. Typically, government contracts for goods would reference specific technical specifications, industry standards (like ASTM or ISO), or manufacturer warranties to define acceptable quality and performance.

Given the 'full and open competition' and 3 bidders, what was the estimated cost savings or price reduction achieved compared to the government estimate?

The data indicates that the contract was awarded under 'full and open competition' with 3 bidders. However, it does not provide information on the government's estimated cost or the negotiated price savings. In a competitive bidding process, the goal is often to achieve prices below the government estimate. Without knowing the baseline estimate, it's impossible to quantify the savings achieved through this competition. The fact that it was competed suggests an effort to obtain competitive pricing, but the extent of savings is not detailed in the provided summary.

What is the historical spending pattern for 'Miscellaneous GPC Purchases' by the Department of the Air Force or Department of Defense?

The provided data is for a single contract ending in September 2008. To understand historical spending patterns for 'Miscellaneous GPC Purchases' by the Department of the Air Force or the broader Department of Defense, one would need to analyze spending data over multiple fiscal years. This would involve querying federal procurement databases (like FPDS-NG or USASpending.gov) for contracts categorized under similar NAICS codes (like 423990) or relevant Product Service Codes (PSCs) over several years. Such an analysis could reveal trends in volume, average contract values, and the prevalence of different contract types and competition levels for these types of goods.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Wholesale Trade › Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers › Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers

Product/Service Code: OFFICE SUPPLIES AND DEVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 2011 CRYSTAL DRIVE STE 911, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $15,595,502

Exercised Options: $15,595,502

Current Obligation: $15,595,502

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: FA701208D9003

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline