DoD's $15.5M warehousing contract with Professional Contract Services, Inc. raises questions on value and competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $15,495,237 ($15.5M)

Contractor: Professional Contract Services, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2005-12-20

End Date: 2011-04-30

Contract Duration: 1,957 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.9K/day

Competition Type: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Place of Performance

Location: FORT HOOD, BELL County, TEXAS, 76544

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $15.5 million to PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES, INC. for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded on a sole-source basis, limiting price discovery and potentially increasing costs. 2. Duration of 1957 days (over 5 years) suggests a long-term need, but initial competition was absent. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type offers cost certainty but may not incentivize efficiency if pricing was not competitive. 4. Performance location in Texas (TX) indicates a specific regional focus for warehousing services. 5. The absence of small business set-aside flags potential missed opportunities for smaller enterprises. 6. Lack of detailed award data (e.g., PSC, AW) hinders a comprehensive performance and value assessment.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

Benchmarking the value of this $15.5 million contract is challenging due to limited public data on the specific services rendered and the absence of competitive bidding. Without comparable contracts or market rate data for General Warehousing and Storage in Texas during the 2005-2011 period, it's difficult to definitively assess if the pricing was optimal. The sole-source nature of the award further complicates a value-for-money assessment, as there was no direct comparison to gauge efficiency or cost-effectiveness against potential competitors.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning it was not competed openly. This approach is typically used when only one source is capable of meeting the requirement, or in specific circumstances where full and open competition is not feasible. The lack of multiple bidders means there was no opportunity for price negotiation based on competitive offers, which could lead to higher costs for the government compared to a competed contract.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers may have paid a premium due to the absence of competitive pressure to drive down costs. The government did not benefit from the potential for better pricing or innovative solutions that often emerge from a competitive bidding process.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefited from warehousing and storage services, ensuring logistical support for its operations. The contract supported the storage and management of goods, likely contributing to the readiness and operational capability of military units. Services were delivered in Texas, impacting the local economy through the contractor's operations and potential employment. The duration of the contract suggests a sustained need for these services, indicating a stable, albeit non-competed, demand.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits competitive pricing and potential cost savings.
Extended contract duration without clear justification for non-competition.
Lack of transparency regarding specific performance metrics and outcomes.
Absence of small business participation noted.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Contract addressed a specific warehousing and storage need for the Department of the Army.
Long-term contract (1957 days) indicates a sustained requirement met.

Sector Analysis

The General Warehousing and Storage sector is a critical component of the logistics and supply chain industry, supporting various government agencies and private enterprises. This contract falls under the broader professional, scientific, and technical services category, specifically related to operational support. While specific market size data for government warehousing in Texas during that period is not readily available, the federal government is a significant consumer of such services, with spending often benchmarked against industry standards for storage, handling, and inventory management.

Small Business Impact

The contract data indicates that this was not a small business set-aside, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting opportunities for small businesses. This suggests that the primary awardee, Professional Contract Services, Inc., was not a small business, and there was no specific requirement for them to engage small businesses for this particular contract. This could represent a missed opportunity to foster small business participation in federal contracting.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve the contracting officer's representative (COR) responsible for monitoring performance and ensuring compliance with contract terms. However, with limited public data, the specifics of performance reviews, quality assurance, and any inspector general involvement are not detailed. Transparency is limited due to the sole-source nature and lack of publicly available performance reports.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Logistics and Supply Chain Management
General Warehousing Services Contracts
Federal Government Storage Solutions
Army Operational Support Contracts

Risk Flags

Sole-source award raises concerns about competition and potential overpricing.
Lack of detailed performance data hinders value assessment.
Extended contract duration without clear competitive justification.
No indication of small business participation or subcontracting.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $15.5 million to PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES, INC.. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is PROFESSIONAL CONTRACT SERVICES, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $15.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2005-12-20. End: 2011-04-30.

What was the justification for awarding this contract on a sole-source basis?

The provided data indicates the contract was 'NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION,' which is a common designation for sole-source awards. However, the specific justification (e.g., unique capabilities, urgent need, lack of sources) is not detailed in the provided data. Typically, agencies must document why full and open competition is not feasible. Without this documentation, it's impossible to fully assess the appropriateness of the sole-source award. This lack of transparency can raise concerns about whether the government explored all viable options for competition.

How does the contract value of approximately $15.5 million compare to similar warehousing contracts awarded by the DoD during that period?

Direct comparison is difficult without more specific details on the scope of services, location, and duration of comparable contracts. However, a $15.5 million contract over roughly five years (1957 days) suggests a significant operational scale. Warehousing contracts can vary widely based on factors like facility size, inventory volume, specialized handling requirements (e.g., hazardous materials, temperature control), and labor intensity. Given the sole-source nature, it's harder to ascertain if this represented a competitive market price or a negotiated rate without competitive benchmarks.

What were the key performance indicators (KPIs) and how was contractor performance measured?

The provided data does not include specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) or details on how Professional Contract Services, Inc.'s performance was measured. For a contract of this nature, typical KPIs might include on-time delivery rates, inventory accuracy, damage rates during handling, facility maintenance standards, and response times. The effectiveness of oversight and the contractor's adherence to these potential metrics would be crucial for ensuring value for money, especially in a sole-source scenario.

What is the track record of Professional Contract Services, Inc. with federal contracts, particularly with the Department of Defense?

Professional Contract Services, Inc. has been awarded federal contracts, including this significant one with the Department of the Army. A deeper analysis would require examining their full contract history, including past performance evaluations, any contract disputes or terminations, and their overall performance across various agencies. Understanding their history with similar services and their ability to meet contractual obligations is key to assessing their reliability and the overall risk associated with this award.

Were there any small business subcontracting requirements or achievements associated with this contract?

The provided data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (ss: false, sb: false). There is no explicit information regarding small business subcontracting goals or achievements. Federal contracts of this size often include provisions for small business participation. The absence of this information suggests either no such requirements were imposed, or they were not tracked or reported in the available data, potentially limiting opportunities for small businesses.

What is the historical spending trend for General Warehousing and Storage services by the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending trends for General Warehousing and Storage by the Department of the Army would involve aggregating data across multiple contracts over several fiscal years. This contract, awarded in late 2005 and ending in 2011, represents a portion of that spending during that period. A broader trend analysis would reveal if spending in this category has increased or decreased, and whether it has been predominantly through competed or sole-source awards, providing context for the significance and typical procurement methods for these services.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Warehousing and Storage › General Warehousing and Storage

Product/Service Code: UTILITIES AND HOUSEKEEPING › HOUSEKEEPING SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT AVAILABLE FOR COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Offers Received: 1

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 5700 S MO PAC EXPY BLDG E, AUSTIN, TX, 90

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

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline