Department of Defense spent $28.8M on general government support in FY08, primarily through purchase orders

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $28,768,096 ($28.8M)

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: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: GPC PAYMENTS - OCT 07 - SEP 08 SMALL BUSINESSES

Place of Performance

Location: SAN ANTONIO, BEXAR County, TEXAS, 78234

State: Texas Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $28.8 million to SMALL BUSINESS CONSOLIDATED REPORTING for work described as: GPC PAYMENTS - OCT 07 - SEP 08 SMALL BUSINESSES Key points: 1. The contract focused on general government support services, indicating a need for administrative or operational assistance. 2. A significant portion of the spending was directed towards small businesses, suggesting a commitment to supporting smaller enterprises. 3. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, implying a robust bidding process. 4. The use of purchase orders suggests a need for flexible and potentially smaller-scale procurements within the larger contract. 5. The contract term was a single year, indicating a short-term need or a periodic re-evaluation of services. 6. The fixed-price contract type suggests that costs were determined upfront, providing budget certainty.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

Benchmarking value for this specific contract is challenging due to the broad 'Other General Government Support' category and the lack of detailed service descriptions. The $28.8 million in spending over one year for purchase orders suggests a high volume of smaller transactions rather than a single large service delivery. Without comparable contracts for similar support services, assessing whether this represents good value is difficult. The fixed-price nature provides some cost control, but the overall efficiency depends heavily on the execution and necessity of the underlying services.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit bids. The presence of two bids suggests a moderate level of competition for this general government support requirement. While competition is present, the limited number of bidders might suggest potential barriers to entry or a niche market for these specific services. This level of competition is generally positive for price discovery but could be improved with broader market engagement.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition is beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple vendors to offer their best prices and services, potentially leading to cost savings. A moderate number of bidders helps ensure that the government is not overpaying for the services received.

Public Impact

Small businesses in Texas likely benefited from subcontracting opportunities or direct awards under this contract. The services provided general government support, which underpins the operational efficiency of the Department of the Army. The contract's impact is primarily administrative, supporting the internal functions of the Department of Defense. Workforce implications are likely related to administrative, clerical, or support roles within the contracting entities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific service details makes it hard to assess the true value and necessity of the spending.
The broad 'Other General Government Support' category could mask inefficiencies or less critical expenditures.
Limited number of bidders (2) in a full and open competition might indicate potential market concentration or barriers.
The single-year duration suggests a potentially reactive procurement rather than strategic, long-term planning.

Positive Signals

Awarded under full and open competition, promoting a fair marketplace.
Significant spending directed towards small businesses, supporting economic growth.
Fixed-price contract type offers cost predictability for the government.
Consolidated reporting suggests an effort towards better tracking of small business expenditures.

Sector Analysis

The 'Other General Government Support' category falls under a broad segment of government services that are essential for the functioning of federal agencies. This includes administrative, management, and general support activities. Spending in this area can fluctuate based on agency needs, efficiency drives, and the outsourcing of non-core functions. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish without more granular data on the specific services procured, but federal spending on administrative support is a consistent and substantial part of the overall budget.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that a notable portion of the $28.8 million in spending was allocated to small businesses, either directly or indirectly. This suggests a positive impact on the small business ecosystem, potentially through direct contract awards or subcontracting opportunities. The consolidated reporting for small businesses implies an effort by the Department of Defense to track and potentially prioritize small business participation. Further analysis would be needed to determine if specific small business set-aside goals were met or if this spending resulted from general competition where small businesses were successful.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army and the Department of Defense's internal audit and contracting offices. The use of purchase orders within a larger contract framework suggests that oversight might be decentralized to the level of individual purchase order issuance and management. Transparency is limited by the lack of detailed service descriptions. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse related to the contract's execution were suspected.

Related Government Programs

General Services Administration (GSA) Schedules
Administrative Support Services Contracts
Small Business Administration (SBA) Programs
Department of Defense Procurement Data

Risk Flags

Limited competition (2 bidders)
Broad service category lacks specificity
Potential for decentralized oversight with purchase orders

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $28.8 million to SMALL BUSINESS CONSOLIDATED REPORTING. GPC PAYMENTS - OCT 07 - SEP 08 SMALL BUSINESSES

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 Army).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $28.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

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

What specific types of 'Other General Government Support' services were procured under this contract?

The provided data categorizes this contract under '921190 - Other General Government Support,' which is a broad classification. Typically, this category can encompass a wide range of services including administrative support, facilities management, logistical support, financial management, human resources support, and other general operational assistance required by government agencies. Without more granular data or access to the contract's statement of work, it is impossible to specify the exact services rendered. This lack of specificity makes it difficult to assess the necessity and efficiency of the spending.

How does the $28.8 million spending compare to similar 'Other General Government Support' contracts within the Department of Defense for FY08?

Direct comparison of the $28.8 million spending to similar 'Other General Government Support' contracts within the Department of Defense for FY08 is challenging due to the broad nature of the category and the limited data provided. Federal procurement data often aggregates spending into high-level categories. To perform a meaningful comparison, one would need to identify contracts with identical or very similar Product Service Codes (PSCs) and analyze their award values, durations, and the specific services they entailed. Anecdotally, $28.8 million for a single year's worth of general support services, especially if it involves multiple purchase orders, is a substantial amount, suggesting significant operational needs or a broad scope of services.

What was the track record of the contractors involved in fulfilling this contract?

The provided data indicates there were two bids received for this contract, but it does not specify the identity of the contractors or their track records. To assess the contractor's track record, one would need to identify the awarded contractor and research their past performance on federal contracts. This would involve reviewing contract databases for previous awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract terminations. A contractor with a history of successful performance, timely delivery, and adherence to budget is generally a positive indicator for contract execution.

What are the potential risks associated with a 'full and open competition' award that resulted in only two bids?

While 'full and open competition' is the preferred method, receiving only two bids can indicate several potential risks. Firstly, it might suggest a lack of market interest or capacity, possibly due to stringent requirements, specialized needs, or insufficient marketing of the opportunity. This could lead to less competitive pricing than anticipated. Secondly, it might indicate a concentrated market where only a few firms possess the necessary qualifications or resources, potentially limiting future competition. Lastly, it could signal that the solicitation requirements were overly restrictive, inadvertently discouraging a broader range of bidders. This situation warrants scrutiny to ensure the government obtained the best possible value.

How does the use of 'Purchase Orders' within this contract impact cost control and oversight?

The use of Purchase Orders (POs) under a larger contract, especially for 'Other General Government Support,' implies a decentralized procurement approach for potentially smaller, more frequent needs. This can offer flexibility and speed in acquiring goods or services. However, it can also complicate cost control and oversight. Each PO needs to be managed and tracked individually, increasing administrative burden. Without robust systems, it can be harder to aggregate spending, monitor overall expenditure against the contract ceiling, and ensure consistent application of terms and conditions across all POs. This fragmentation can sometimes lead to less favorable pricing compared to larger, consolidated orders.

What is the significance of the contract being 'Firm Fixed Price' (FFP) in the context of general government support?

A 'Firm Fixed Price' (FFP) contract type means the price is set and not subject to adjustment based on the contractor's cost experience in performing the work. For general government support services, an FFP contract provides the government with cost certainty and predictability, which is beneficial for budgeting. It places the risk of cost overruns on the contractor. This structure incentivizes the contractor to manage their costs efficiently to maximize profit. However, if the scope of work is not well-defined or if unforeseen issues arise, the contractor might be disincentivized from performing additional necessary work, or conversely, might have built in significant contingency into the price, making it less competitive.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Public Administration › Executive, Legislative, and Other General Government Support › Other General Government Support

Product/Service Code: AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

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

Business Categories: Category Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $28,768,096

Exercised Options: $28,768,096

Current Obligation: $28,768,096

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Timeline