DoD's $16.2M contract for surgical supplies awarded to Quick Protective Systems Inc. in 2003

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $16,255,324 ($16.3M)

Contractor: Quick Protective Systems Incorporated

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2003-11-21

End Date: 2009-11-06

Contract Duration: 2,177 days

Daily Burn Rate: $7.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Healthcare

Place of Performance

Location: STUART, MARTIN County, FLORIDA, 34995

State: Florida Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $16.3 million to QUICK PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED for work described as: Key points: 1. Contract awarded for surgical appliances and supplies, a critical component of healthcare services. 2. The contract was secured through full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The duration of the contract was substantial, spanning over six years. 4. The contract was awarded by the Department of the Army, indicating a defense-related healthcare need. 5. The fixed-price nature of the contract provides cost certainty for the government. 6. The contractor, Quick Protective Systems Incorporated, has a track record with this specific award.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking the value of this contract is challenging without more detailed cost breakdowns or comparisons to similar procurements during the 2003-2009 period. The raw award amount of $16.2 million over six years suggests an average annual spend of approximately $2.7 million. This figure needs to be contextualized against the specific types and quantities of surgical supplies procured, as well as prevailing market prices at the time. Without access to detailed performance metrics or cost-per-unit data, a definitive assessment of value-for-money is difficult.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

This contract was awarded under 'full and open competition,' indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of 3 bidders suggests a moderate level of competition for this specific requirement. While three bidders is better than a sole-source award, a higher number of competitors could potentially drive prices lower and encourage more innovative solutions. The specific details of the bidding process and evaluation criteria would provide further insight into the effectiveness of the competition.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive process, even with three bidders, generally benefits taxpayers by fostering price discovery and potentially leading to more cost-effective awards compared to non-competitive methods.

Public Impact

Military personnel and potentially civilian healthcare facilities within the Department of Defense's purview benefit from the consistent supply of surgical appliances and supplies. The contract ensures the availability of essential medical equipment for surgical procedures and patient care. The geographic impact is primarily linked to the operational locations of the Department of the Army, likely within the United States. The contract supports jobs within the surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing sector, contributing to the broader healthcare industry workforce.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of detailed performance data makes it difficult to assess the quality and timeliness of supplies delivered.
The long contract duration could potentially lead to complacency or reduced incentive for innovation if not managed actively.
Limited information on the specific types and quantities of surgical supplies procured hinders a precise value assessment.
The absence of data on small business subcontracting makes it hard to evaluate the impact on smaller enterprises.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a fair and accessible process for potential bidders.
The firm fixed-price contract structure provides budget certainty for the government.
The contract was awarded by a major federal agency (Department of Defense), suggesting a significant and validated need.
The contract duration of over six years implies a stable and reliable supply chain was established.

Sector Analysis

The surgical appliance and supplies manufacturing sector is a vital part of the broader healthcare industry, encompassing a wide range of products from basic bandages to complex surgical instruments. This contract falls within the manufacturing and distribution segment of this sector. Comparable spending benchmarks would typically involve analyzing other large-scale government contracts for medical supplies, particularly those awarded by the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs, to understand typical price points and contract values for similar goods.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included a small business set-aside. Furthermore, the data does not specify any subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Without this information, it is difficult to assess the direct impact on the small business ecosystem. However, large prime contracts often create opportunities for small businesses as suppliers or subcontractors, even if not explicitly mandated.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would have been primarily managed by the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Army. Accountability measures would be embedded in the contract terms, including delivery schedules, quality standards, and payment terms. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract award databases like FPDS, which provide basic information on contract value, duration, and competition. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Medical Supplies Procurement
Surgical Equipment Contracts
Federal Healthcare Supply Chain Management
Medical Readiness Contracts
Veterans Affairs Medical Supplies

Risk Flags

Lack of detailed performance data
Limited cost transparency
Unknown small business subcontracting impact

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $16.3 million to QUICK PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED. See the official description on USAspending.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is QUICK PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $16.3 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2003-11-21. End: 2009-11-06.

What was the specific breakdown of surgical supplies procured under this contract?

The provided data does not specify the exact breakdown of surgical supplies procured under this contract. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 339113, 'Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing,' indicates the general category of goods. However, to understand the value and performance, a detailed list of items, quantities, and unit prices would be necessary. This level of detail is typically found in contract line item numbers (CLINs) within the contract's statement of work or delivery orders, which are not included in the summary data.

How did the pricing of surgical supplies under this contract compare to market rates at the time of award?

Direct comparison of pricing to market rates at the time of award (2003) is not possible with the given data. The contract value of $16.2 million over six years provides a total figure, but not unit costs for specific items. To assess price competitiveness, one would need to obtain the contract's CLINs and compare the unit prices for items like surgical gloves, gowns, or instruments against contemporaneous commercial price lists or other government contract awards for similar items. The 'full and open competition' suggests an effort to achieve fair market prices, but actual performance against benchmarks is unknown.

What were the performance metrics and quality standards required by the contract?

The provided summary data does not detail the specific performance metrics or quality standards stipulated in the contract. Typically, such contracts would include requirements related to delivery timeliness, product quality (e.g., meeting FDA standards, ISO certifications), packaging, and potentially inventory management. Compliance with these standards would be monitored by the contracting officer's representative (COR). Without access to the contract's statement of work or performance work statement, a thorough assessment of performance is not feasible.

Were there any issues or disputes related to contract performance or delivery?

Information regarding contract disputes, performance issues, or claims is not present in the summary data provided. Such details would typically be documented in contract modification histories, termination notices, or legal filings if significant problems arose. The absence of such information in a summary database suggests that the contract may have proceeded without major contractual disputes, or that such issues were resolved internally without escalating to formal disputes.

What is the historical spending trend for surgical appliances and supplies by the Department of the Army?

This specific contract represents a $16.2 million expenditure over six years (2003-2009) for surgical supplies. To understand the broader historical spending trend, one would need to analyze aggregate spending data for NAICS code 339113 or similar medical supply categories by the Department of the Army across multiple fiscal years. This would involve querying federal procurement databases for spending patterns before, during, and after this contract's period of performance to identify trends in volume, value, and types of suppliers utilized.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Manufacturing › Medical Equipment and Supplies Manufacturing › Surgical Appliance and Supplies Manufacturing

Product/Service Code: FIRE/RESCUE/SAFETY; ENVIRO PROTECT

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 333 TRESSLER DRIVE, STUART, FL, 21

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $2,363,048

Exercised Options: $2,363,048

Current Obligation: $16,255,324

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline