DoD's $4.4M contract for SHARP data systems support awarded to Spider Strategies, Inc. without competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,393,818 ($4.4M)

Contractor: Spider Strategies, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2025-07-03

End Date: 2026-07-02

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $12.1K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: IT

Official Description: PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, BUILD AND MAINTAIN SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ASSAULT RESPONSE AND PREVENTION (SHARP) DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (DMS), AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SMS).

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20310

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $4.4 million to SPIDER STRATEGIES, INC. for work described as: PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, BUILD AND MAINTAIN SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ASSAULT RESPONSE AND PREVENTION (SHARP) DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (DMS), AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SMS). Key points: 1. Contract focuses on critical support for sexual harassment and assault prevention data systems. 2. Sole-source award raises questions about potential cost efficiencies and market alternatives. 3. Performance management consulting is a key component, suggesting a need for specialized expertise. 4. The contract duration of one year indicates a need for ongoing, but potentially short-term, support. 5. Fixed-price contract type aims to control costs, but competition is key to ensuring value. 6. The awardee, Spider Strategies, Inc., will be responsible for building and maintaining vital data systems.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value of $4.4 million for a one-year period for technical support and consulting services is difficult to benchmark without more information on the scope of work and specific deliverables. Given the sole-source nature of the award, there is a heightened risk that the pricing may not reflect competitive market rates. Further analysis would be needed to compare the per-unit costs or overall value against similar contracts for custom computer programming services or specialized data management systems.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded on a sole-source basis, meaning that only one vendor, Spider Strategies, Inc., was solicited. This approach bypasses the standard competitive bidding process, which typically involves soliciting proposals from multiple qualified contractors. Without competition, it is challenging to ascertain if the government secured the best possible price and terms for these critical services. The justification for a sole-source award would need to be thoroughly reviewed to understand why other vendors were not considered.

Taxpayer Impact: Sole-source awards can potentially lead to higher costs for taxpayers as the absence of competition removes the incentive for vendors to offer their most competitive pricing. This can also limit opportunities for other capable small businesses to compete for government contracts.

Public Impact

The Department of the Army benefits from specialized technical support for its critical SHARP data management systems. The contract ensures the continued operation and maintenance of systems vital for tracking and responding to sexual harassment and assault. Personnel within the Department of Defense will benefit from improved data management and strategic consulting related to these sensitive issues. The services delivered are crucial for the effectiveness of the military's efforts to prevent and address sexual misconduct.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Sole-source award limits price discovery and potentially increases costs for taxpayers.
Lack of competition may reduce the incentive for the contractor to innovate or improve service delivery.
Dependence on a single contractor for critical data systems poses a potential risk if performance issues arise.
The specific technical expertise required might limit the pool of potential alternative contractors, though this should be validated.

Positive Signals

The contract is for a firm-fixed-price, which helps to cap costs and provide budget certainty.
The contractor, Spider Strategies, Inc., is being tasked with building and maintaining essential data management systems, indicating a specialized capability.
The contract supports a critical program (SHARP) aimed at addressing serious issues within the military.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the IT services sector, specifically custom computer programming and data management. The market for such services is highly competitive, with numerous firms offering expertise in software development, system maintenance, and strategic consulting. The Department of Defense is a significant consumer of IT services, often requiring specialized solutions for complex operational needs. Benchmarking this contract's value would ideally involve comparing it to other government or commercial contracts for similar data management systems and performance consulting, particularly those awarded through competitive processes.

Small Business Impact

This contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it indicate any specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Given the sole-source nature of the award, opportunities for small businesses to participate in this specific contract are likely limited unless they are partners or subcontractors to the prime awardee. Further investigation into Spider Strategies, Inc.'s subcontracting plans would be necessary to assess any potential impact on the small business ecosystem.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract will primarily reside with the Department of the Army contracting officers and program managers. The firm-fixed-price structure provides some cost control. Transparency regarding the justification for the sole-source award and the contractor's performance metrics would be crucial for effective oversight. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse is suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense IT Services
Custom Computer Programming Services
Data Management Systems
Performance Management Consulting
Sexual Harassment/Assault Prevention Programs

Risk Flags

Sole-source award without clear justification.
Potential for inflated pricing due to lack of competition.
Dependence on a single vendor for critical systems.
Limited transparency on specific performance metrics and deliverables.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $4.4 million to SPIDER STRATEGIES, INC.. PROVIDE TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES IN PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTING, BUILD AND MAINTAIN SEXUAL HARASSMENT/ASSAULT RESPONSE AND PREVENTION (SHARP) DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (DMS), AND STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SMS).

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SPIDER STRATEGIES, 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 $4.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2025-07-03. End: 2026-07-02.

What is the specific technical expertise Spider Strategies, Inc. possesses that justifies a sole-source award for building and maintaining the SHARP DMS and SMS?

The justification for a sole-source award typically hinges on unique capabilities, specialized knowledge, or the urgency of the requirement where only one source can reasonably meet the need. For Spider Strategies, Inc., this could involve proprietary technology, deep institutional knowledge of the existing SHARP data systems, or a proven track record with highly sensitive government data management. Without access to the official sole-source justification documentation (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), it is difficult to ascertain the precise technical expertise. However, the contract's description implies a need for custom development and ongoing maintenance of complex data systems related to sensitive personnel issues, suggesting a requirement for robust cybersecurity, data integrity, and potentially advanced analytics capabilities that few firms might possess or be cleared to handle.

How does the $4.4 million contract value compare to similar custom computer programming services or data management system contracts within the DoD?

Benchmarking the $4.4 million contract value requires comparing it against similar contracts for custom computer programming services (NAICS 541511) or specialized data management systems within the Department of Defense. However, this comparison is significantly hampered by the sole-source nature of the award and the lack of detailed scope of work. Typically, competitive contracts for similar services might range widely based on complexity, duration, and specific functionalities. For a one-year contract focused on building and maintaining sensitive data systems, $4.4 million could be reasonable if the scope is extensive and requires highly specialized skills. Conversely, if the scope is more limited or involves standard software development practices, this amount might be on the higher end, especially without competitive pressure driving down costs. A thorough analysis would necessitate reviewing contract databases for comparable sole-source and competitively awarded contracts, adjusting for contract duration, labor categories, and specific technical requirements.

What are the key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics used to evaluate Spider Strategies, Inc.'s performance on this contract?

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for a contract involving the development and maintenance of critical data management systems like the SHARP DMS and SMS would likely focus on system availability, data integrity, security compliance, response times for technical issues, and successful implementation of new features or updates. For performance management consulting, KPIs might include the quality of strategic advice provided, successful integration of recommendations, and measurable improvements in program effectiveness. Specific metrics would be detailed in the contract's Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Statement of Objectives (SOO). These KPIs are crucial for ensuring the contractor meets the government's needs and for justifying continued funding or contract renewal. Without the PWS, the exact KPIs remain unknown, but they would be designed to ensure the reliability and effectiveness of the vital SHARP systems.

What is the historical spending pattern for SHARP data management systems support within the Department of the Army?

Analyzing historical spending patterns for SHARP data management systems support within the Department of the Army is essential to understand the context of this $4.4 million award. This involves examining past contracts awarded for similar services, including their values, durations, awardees, and whether they were competitively sourced. If previous contracts were significantly smaller or competitively awarded at lower price points, it could raise questions about the current sole-source award's value. Conversely, if spending has been consistently high and often through sole-source or limited competition due to specialized needs, it might provide some context. Access to historical contract data, such as through the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), would be necessary to identify trends, potential cost increases over time, and the evolution of requirements for SHARP data systems support.

What are the potential risks associated with a sole-source award for critical data management systems like the SHARP DMS?

A sole-source award for critical data management systems like the SHARP DMS presents several potential risks. Firstly, the lack of competition can lead to higher costs for taxpayers, as the government may not benefit from the most competitive pricing. Secondly, it can reduce the incentive for the awarded contractor to innovate or maintain the highest levels of service quality, as there is no immediate threat of losing the contract to a competitor. Thirdly, there's a risk of vendor lock-in, where the government becomes overly dependent on a single provider, making it difficult and costly to switch vendors in the future, especially if the systems are proprietary or deeply integrated. Finally, without competitive vetting, there's a potential, albeit usually mitigated by other checks, for the selected vendor to have unforeseen performance issues or security vulnerabilities that might have been identified during a broader competitive evaluation.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Computer Systems Design and Related Services › Custom Computer Programming Services

Product/Service Code: IT AND TELECOM - INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS › IT AND TELECOM - APLLICATIONS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1201 WILSON BLVD 27TH FLOOR, ARLINGTON, VA, 22209

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Manufacturer of Goods, Small Business, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,393,818

Exercised Options: $4,393,818

Current Obligation: $4,393,818

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: W91CRB22D0010

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline