State Department Awards $22M Consulting Contract to Undisclosed Domestic Firm

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,068,363 ($22.1M)

Contractor: Domestic Awardees (undisclosed)

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2015-09-21

End Date: 2017-03-20

Contract Duration: 546 days

Daily Burn Rate: $40.4K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $22.1 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED) for work described as: OVERSEAS CONTRACT Key points: 1. Significant contract value of $22.07 million. 2. Competition details are undisclosed, raising transparency concerns. 3. Contract awarded as 'NOT COMPETED', suggesting limited market exploration. 4. Focus on Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $22.07 million for management consulting services is substantial. Without disclosed awardee information or competitive details, it's difficult to benchmark pricing against similar contracts effectively.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was 'NOT COMPETED', indicating a limited approach to competition. This method may not have ensured the best possible price discovery or value for the government.

Taxpayer Impact: The lack of competition and undisclosed awardee details limit the ability to assess optimal taxpayer value.

Public Impact

Taxpayers may not have received the best value due to a lack of competitive bidding. The undisclosed nature of the awardee raises questions about accountability and potential conflicts of interest. Limited transparency in the procurement process hinders public understanding of government spending.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Undisclosed Awardee
Not Competed
Limited Transparency

Positive Signals

Domestic Awardee

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the professional services sector, specifically management consulting. Benchmarks for similar services can vary widely based on scope and expertise, but competitive processes are key to ensuring fair pricing.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates the awardee is domestic but does not specify if it is a small business. The 'sb' field is false, suggesting it was not awarded to a small business.

Oversight & Accountability

The 'NOT COMPETED' status and undisclosed awardee details suggest potential gaps in oversight. Further investigation into the justification for not competing the contract is warranted.

Related Government Programs

Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services
Department of State Contracting
Department of State Programs

Risk Flags

Lack of Competition
Undisclosed Awardee
Limited Transparency
Potential for Overpricing

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $22.1 million to DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED). OVERSEAS CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is DOMESTIC AWARDEES (UNDISCLOSED).

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of State (Department of State).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22.1 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2015-09-21. End: 2017-03-20.

What was the specific justification for not competing this $22 million contract?

The provided data states the contract was 'NOT COMPETED'. A detailed justification would typically be documented by the agency, outlining reasons such as a sole source requirement, urgent need, or specific technical expertise unavailable elsewhere. Without this documentation, the rationale remains unclear, impacting the assessment of procurement efficiency and value.

How can the government ensure fair pricing when awardee details are undisclosed and competition is limited?

Ensuring fair pricing in such scenarios relies heavily on robust pre-award market research, clear performance work statements, and strong internal agency controls. When competition is limited or absent, agencies must rigorously justify the price based on independent cost estimates, historical data, or certified cost or pricing data from the contractor. Transparency in the justification process is also crucial.

What are the potential risks associated with awarding large contracts without full competition and transparency?

The primary risks include potential overpayment, reduced quality of services, and erosion of public trust. Lack of competition can lead to inflated prices and stifle innovation. Undisclosed awardees can obscure potential conflicts of interest or favorit a lack of accountability. This opacity makes it difficult for oversight bodies and the public to verify that taxpayer funds are being used effectively and responsibly.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Management, Scientific, and Technical Consulting Services › Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: COST PLUS FIXED FEE (U)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1800 F ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20405

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

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,074,795

Exercised Options: $22,074,795

Current Obligation: $22,068,363

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: YES

Timeline