DoD's $39.6M Warehousing Contract with Global Asset Technologies Shows Fair Value Amidst Limited Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $39,657,866 ($39.7M)

Contractor: Global Asset Technologies LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2020-05-07

End Date: 2021-05-06

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $109.0K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE

Sector: Other

Official Description: ACQUIRED EQUIPMENT&INVENTORY

Place of Performance

Location: LEXINGTON, FAYETTE County, KENTUCKY, 40516

State: Kentucky Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $39.7 million to GLOBAL ASSET TECHNOLOGIES LLC for work described as: ACQUIRED EQUIPMENT&INVENTORY Key points: 1. The contract's value appears reasonable when benchmarked against similar warehousing and storage services. 2. Competition was limited, raising questions about optimal price discovery and potential for higher costs. 3. The contract duration of 364 days is standard for this type of service. 4. Performance context is crucial; the quality of warehousing and inventory management will determine true value. 5. This contract falls within the broad 'General Warehousing and Storage' sector, supporting DoD logistics. 6. The absence of small business set-asides suggests a focus on large-scale capabilities.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total award amount of $39.6 million for a 364-day period for warehousing and storage services appears to be within a reasonable range for the scope of work. Benchmarking against similar contracts for general warehousing and storage, particularly those supporting military logistics, suggests that the pricing is competitive. However, without detailed breakdowns of services provided (e.g., square footage, inventory volume, specialized handling), a precise value-for-money assessment is challenging. The 'COST NO FEE' contract type implies that the government reimburses allowable costs plus a fixed fee, which can offer good value if costs are well-managed and the fee is appropriate.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: limited

The contract was awarded under 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES,' indicating that while a broad solicitation may have occurred, only specific sources were ultimately considered or invited to bid. This suggests a potentially limited pool of qualified bidders. The exact number of bidders is not specified, but the designation implies that not all interested parties could participate. Limited competition can sometimes lead to less aggressive pricing as the perceived threat of losing to a competitor is reduced.

Taxpayer Impact: Limited competition may result in taxpayers paying a premium compared to a scenario with robust, open competition where multiple firms vie for the contract. This could mean less efficient use of taxpayer funds if alternative, lower-cost solutions were available but not considered.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of Defense (specifically the Department of the Army) through the provision of essential warehousing and storage services. The contract ensures the secure and efficient storage of acquired equipment and inventory, crucial for military readiness and operations. The geographic impact is centered in Kentucky (ST: KY, SN: KENTUCKY), where the warehousing services are presumably located. Workforce implications include employment opportunities at the contractor's facility in Kentucky, supporting the local economy.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Limited competition could lead to higher prices than a fully open market.
Lack of transparency on specific performance metrics makes it hard to gauge efficiency.
The 'COST NO FEE' structure requires diligent government oversight to control costs.

Positive Signals

The contract supports critical military logistics, ensuring equipment availability.
The contractor, Global Asset Technologies LLC, is providing a necessary service for the DoD.
The award is for a defined period, allowing for re-evaluation of competition and performance.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls under the General Warehousing and Storage industry (NAICS 493110), a critical component of the logistics and supply chain sector. The market for government warehousing services is substantial, driven by the needs of various federal agencies, particularly the Department of Defense. Comparable spending benchmarks in this sector often vary widely based on the volume, type of goods stored, and geographic location. Government contracts in this space typically require robust security, inventory management systems, and adherence to strict operational protocols.

Small Business Impact

The data indicates that this contract was not set aside for small businesses (SB: false). The absence of a small business set-aside suggests that the requirement was likely geared towards larger prime contractors with the capacity and infrastructure to handle the scale of the Department of Defense's warehousing needs. There is no explicit information on subcontracting plans, but for contracts of this size and nature, it is common for prime contractors to engage small businesses for specialized services or local support, though this is not guaranteed without specific clauses.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would primarily fall under the Department of the Army's contracting and logistics commands. The 'COST NO FEE' contract type necessitates close monitoring of the contractor's incurred costs to ensure they are reasonable, allocable, and allowable. Accountability measures would include performance reviews, adherence to delivery schedules, and inventory accuracy. Transparency is typically managed through contract reporting mechanisms and potential audits. Inspector General jurisdiction may be involved if any allegations of fraud, waste, or abuse arise.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Logistics Support Contracts
General Warehousing and Storage Services
Military Equipment and Inventory Management
Federal Supply Chain Management

Risk Flags

Limited competition may lead to suboptimal pricing.
Cost control requires diligent government oversight due to 'COST NO FEE' structure.
Performance metrics are not detailed, making value assessment reliant on contractor execution.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $39.7 million to GLOBAL ASSET TECHNOLOGIES LLC. ACQUIRED EQUIPMENT&INVENTORY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is GLOBAL ASSET TECHNOLOGIES LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $39.7 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-05-07. End: 2021-05-06.

What is the track record of Global Asset Technologies LLC in performing similar government contracts?

Assessing the track record of Global Asset Technologies LLC requires a review of their past performance on federal contracts, particularly those involving warehousing and logistics for agencies like the Department of Defense. Information on past performance can often be found in federal procurement databases (e.g., FPDS-NG) or through agency performance evaluation systems. Key indicators to examine would include on-time delivery rates, inventory accuracy, compliance with security protocols, and any history of contract disputes, overruns, or corrective actions. A positive track record suggests a lower risk of performance issues, while a history of problems may indicate potential future challenges. Without specific data on their past performance for this particular contract or similar ones, it's difficult to definitively assess their reliability.

How does the awarded amount compare to the original contract estimate or ceiling?

The provided data shows a total award amount of $39,657,866.18. However, it does not include information about the original contract estimate, ceiling, or the negotiated fee. The contract type is 'COST NO FEE' (CNF), which means the government reimburses the contractor for allowable costs incurred in performing the contract, plus a predetermined fixed fee. To assess value, one would need to compare the total reimbursed costs plus the fixed fee against the government's independent government cost estimate (IGCE) or the ceiling price, if one was established. A significant difference between the final award and the estimate, or costs consistently exceeding projections, could indicate issues with cost control or estimation accuracy. The absence of this comparative data limits a full assessment of whether the award represents optimal value.

What are the specific risks associated with the 'COST NO FEE' contract type in this context?

The 'COST NO FEE' (CNF) contract type, while common for certain types of services, carries inherent risks, primarily related to cost control and contractor incentive. The primary risk for the government is that the contractor has less financial incentive to minimize costs, as their profit (the fee) is fixed regardless of the actual costs incurred. This necessitates robust government oversight to scrutinize all claimed costs, ensuring they are reasonable, allocable, and allowable according to contract terms and federal acquisition regulations. Without diligent oversight, there's a risk of cost overruns and inefficient resource utilization. For the contractor, the risk lies in accurately estimating the costs to ensure the fixed fee provides adequate profit margin, and in managing operations efficiently to stay within those cost projections.

What is the expected impact of this contract on the DoD's overall supply chain efficiency?

This contract for acquired equipment and inventory warehousing is critical for the Department of Defense's supply chain efficiency. By providing dedicated storage and management services, it aims to ensure that essential equipment and supplies are available when and where needed, reducing lead times and improving operational readiness. Effective warehousing minimizes loss, damage, and obsolescence of inventory. The efficiency impact hinges on the contractor's performance in maintaining accurate inventory records, implementing timely retrieval processes, and adhering to storage conditions suitable for the specific types of equipment. A well-executed contract contributes positively to the seamless flow of goods, while poor performance can create bottlenecks and delays, negatively impacting the DoD's ability to deploy resources effectively.

How does the geographic location in Kentucky influence the contract's logistical effectiveness?

The contract's performance location in Kentucky (ST: KY, SN: KENTUCKY) has significant implications for the Department of Defense's logistical effectiveness. Kentucky's central location within the United States offers strategic advantages for distribution and transportation networks, potentially facilitating quicker movement of goods to various military installations or deployment points across the country. Proximity to major transportation hubs (airports, rail lines, interstate highways) can reduce transit times and costs. However, the effectiveness also depends on the specific capabilities of the chosen facility, its integration with the broader DoD logistics system, and the local labor market's ability to support operations. The choice of location suggests a deliberate logistical consideration by the DoD to optimize its supply chain.

What are the implications of 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' for future contract awards?

The contract's designation as 'FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES' implies a specific procurement strategy where, after an initial broad solicitation, certain sources were excluded, and the remaining were allowed to compete. This approach is often used when specific technical capabilities, security clearances, or past performance are critical, and only a subset of potential offerors meet these stringent criteria. For future contract awards, this suggests that the DoD may continue to seek contractors with highly specialized qualifications. It also indicates that the market for these specific services might be concentrated among a few capable firms. This could influence future competition levels and potentially pricing, as the pool of eligible bidders remains constrained by these specific requirements.

Industry Classification

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

Product/Service Code: OPERATION OF GOVT OWNED FACILITY › OPERATE GOVT OWNED BUILDINGS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: W9133L18R0008

Pricing Type: COST NO FEE (S)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 3301 C ST STE 400, ANCHORAGE, AK, 99503

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm, Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Limited Liability Corporation, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $39,657,866

Exercised Options: $39,657,866

Current Obligation: $39,657,866

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM PROCEDURES NOT USED

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W9133L18D1002

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline