State Department spent over $10.3M on management consulting services via a non-competitive order

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $10,335,116 ($10.3M)

Contractor: Management Systems International, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of State

Start Date: 2006-09-27

End Date: 2015-09-25

Contract Duration: 3,285 days

Daily Burn Rate: $3.1K/day

Competition Type: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: STUDIES AND MONITORING

Plain-Language Summary

Department of State obligated $10.3 million to MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC. for work described as: STUDIES AND MONITORING Key points: 1. The contract focused on administrative and general management consulting, a broad category with potential for varied outcomes. 2. A single award for a significant dollar amount raises questions about the initial procurement strategy and potential for broader competition. 3. The contract duration of 9 years suggests a long-term need for these services, but also a prolonged period without competitive re-evaluation. 4. The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government, but the value for money depends heavily on the quality and impact of the services delivered. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags indicates this contract did not prioritize small business participation. 6. The lack of detailed performance metrics or outcomes in the provided data makes a definitive value-for-money assessment challenging.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking this contract's value is difficult without specific deliverables or performance metrics. However, the $10.3 million expenditure over nine years for administrative management consulting suggests a substantial investment. Comparing it to similar contracts for management consulting services at the State Department or other agencies would be necessary to assess if the pricing was competitive and if the services delivered represented good value. The firm fixed-price nature offers predictability, but the true value hinges on the effectiveness and impact of the consulting provided.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a non-competitive delivery order, meaning it was not openly competed. This suggests that either the services were deemed so specialized that only one contractor could provide them, or there was a specific justification for bypassing the competitive process. The lack of competition limits the government's ability to explore alternative solutions or secure potentially lower prices through a bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: A sole-source award means taxpayers did not benefit from the price discovery and potential cost savings that a competitive bidding process could have offered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries of this contract are likely the internal operations and management functions of the Department of State, aiming for improved efficiency and effectiveness. The services delivered would have supported administrative and general management functions, potentially impacting policy implementation and operational processes. The geographic impact is primarily within the Department of State's operational footprint, likely concentrated in Washington D.C. and potentially other key administrative centers. Workforce implications could include support for existing staff, process improvements, or the implementation of new management strategies.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition limits potential cost savings for taxpayers.
Extended contract duration without re-competition raises concerns about sustained value and adaptability.
Absence of small business participation may limit opportunities for smaller firms in this service area.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty.
Long-term engagement suggests a recognized need and potential for deep institutional knowledge transfer.

Sector Analysis

The administrative management and general management consulting services sector is a significant market within federal contracting. Agencies often procure these services to improve efficiency, implement new strategies, or manage complex operations. The State Department's spending in this area aligns with typical government needs for expert advice. Benchmarks for similar consulting contracts can vary widely based on scope, duration, and the specific expertise required, but a $10.3 million spend over nine years for a single delivery order indicates a substantial, long-term engagement.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to have included a small business set-aside. The sole-source nature of the award further indicates that opportunities for small businesses to participate, either as prime contractors or through subcontracting, were likely limited or non-existent under this specific order. This could mean that the ecosystem of small businesses specializing in administrative management consulting did not have a direct avenue to compete for this particular engagement.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of State's internal contracting and program management offices. As a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle (though the parent contract is not specified), oversight would focus on ensuring adherence to the terms and conditions of the order, delivery of services, and proper invoicing. Transparency is limited by the non-competitive nature and the lack of publicly available detailed performance reports. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any issues of fraud, waste, or abuse were identified.

Related Government Programs

Management and Consulting Services
Administrative Support Services
Professional Services Contracts
Department of State Operations

Risk Flags

Non-competitive award
Long contract duration
Lack of transparency on specific services and outcomes

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of State awarded $10.3 million to MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC.. STUDIES AND MONITORING

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $10.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2006-09-27. End: 2015-09-25.

What was the specific nature of the administrative and general management consulting services provided under this contract?

The provided data indicates the contract falls under NAICS code 541611, which covers Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services. This broad category typically includes services such as organizational planning, financial planning and management, human resources management, marketing management, and information management consulting. Without more specific details from the contract statement of work, it's difficult to pinpoint the exact services rendered. However, given the Department of State's mission, these services likely supported internal operational improvements, strategic planning, process optimization, or the implementation of new management frameworks to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of diplomatic and administrative functions.

Why was this contract awarded on a non-competitive (sole-source) basis?

The data explicitly states this was a 'NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER.' Federal procurement regulations allow for non-competitive awards under specific circumstances, such as when only one responsible source can provide the required supplies or services, or when there is a compelling urgency. For a contract of this duration and value, a sole-source justification would typically require a detailed explanation from the agency outlining why a competitive process was not feasible or advantageous. Common reasons include highly specialized expertise, proprietary technology, or a follow-on requirement where switching contractors would be impractical or excessively costly. The specific justification for this State Department contract is not detailed in the provided data.

How does the $10.3 million expenditure compare to typical spending on similar consulting services by the Department of State?

Directly comparing the $10.3 million expenditure without knowing the specific scope, duration, and deliverables is challenging. However, the contract spanned nine years (September 2006 to September 2015), averaging approximately $1.14 million per year. This annual spend is substantial but not necessarily out of line for significant management consulting engagements within a large federal agency like the Department of State. To provide a true benchmark, one would need to analyze the average annual spend on similar NAICS 541611 services by the State Department over that period, considering contract types (e.g., IDIQs, task orders) and the complexity of the services provided. The fact that it was a single, non-competitive delivery order for the entire duration is a notable aspect.

What are the potential risks associated with a nine-year, sole-source contract for consulting services?

A nine-year sole-source contract presents several risks. Firstly, the lack of competition over an extended period can lead to complacency and potentially higher costs than if the contract were periodically re-competed. Secondly, the government may miss out on innovative solutions or more cost-effective approaches that newer market entrants or competitors could offer. Thirdly, institutional knowledge might become overly concentrated within the contractor, making it difficult for the agency to transition to a different provider or manage the services internally if needed. Finally, without regular competitive pressure, there's a risk that the quality of services could decline over time if not rigorously overseen.

What performance metrics or oversight mechanisms were likely in place to ensure value for money?

While the provided data doesn't detail specific performance metrics or oversight mechanisms, federal contracts typically include provisions for performance monitoring. For a firm fixed-price contract, the government would likely have designated a Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) responsible for overseeing the contractor's performance against the agreed-upon scope of work and deliverables. Performance standards, quality assurance surveillance plans (QASPs), and regular progress reviews would be expected. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms is amplified when there is competition, as underperformance can lead to contract termination or non-renewal. In a sole-source, long-term scenario, robust internal agency oversight and clear performance expectations are crucial to mitigate risks.

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) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NON-COMPETITIVE DELIVERY ORDER

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Coffey International Limited (UEI: 751041278)

Address: 200 12TH ST SOUTH, ARLINGTON, VA, 22202

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $11,691,099

Exercised Options: $10,357,409

Current Obligation: $10,335,116

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: GS23F8012H

IDV Type: FSS

Timeline