Department of Transportation awards $7M delivery order for transit services to WMATA, citing 'other functions'

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $34,803,102 ($34.8M)

Contractor: Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

Awarding Agency: Department of Transportation

Start Date: 2017-01-31

End Date: 2018-01-23

Contract Duration: 357 days

Daily Burn Rate: $97.5K/day

Competition Type: NOT COMPETED

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Transportation

Official Description: IGF::OT::IGF - OTHER FUNCTIONS FY 17 WMATA_NEW DELIVERY ORDER_$7,040,450.00

Place of Performance

Location: WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA County, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 20590

State: District of Columbia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Transportation obligated $34.8 million to WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY for work described as: IGF::OT::IGF - OTHER FUNCTIONS FY 17 WMATA_NEW DELIVERY ORDER_$7,040,450.00 Key points: 1. Value for money is difficult to assess due to limited competition and lack of detailed performance metrics. 2. Competition dynamics are heavily skewed towards a sole-source award, potentially limiting price discovery. 3. Risk indicators include the lack of a competitive process and the broad categorization of services. 4. Performance context is vague, with 'other functions' not clearly defining the scope of work. 5. Sector positioning is within the transit and ground passenger transportation sub-sector.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract's value is difficult to benchmark without clear service definitions and comparable contracts. The award to WMATA, a quasi-governmental entity, may involve different cost structures than private sector contracts. The lack of competition raises concerns about whether the price reflects optimal value for the services rendered. Further justification for the pricing and scope is needed to confirm value for money.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: sole-source

This contract was awarded as a sole-source delivery order, meaning it was not competed. The rationale provided is 'other functions,' which is not specific enough to understand why full and open competition was not pursued. The absence of multiple bidders means there was no opportunity for price discovery through a competitive bidding process.

Taxpayer Impact: The sole-source nature of this award means taxpayers did not benefit from potential cost savings that could arise from a competitive bidding process. The government may have paid a higher price than if multiple vendors had vied for the contract.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiary is the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), which receives funding for services. Services delivered are broadly categorized as 'other functions' related to transit and ground passenger transportation. The geographic impact is concentrated in the District of Columbia and surrounding metropolitan areas served by WMATA. Workforce implications are likely internal to WMATA, as the award is to an existing transit authority.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of competition limits price scrutiny.
Vague service description ('other functions') hinders performance assessment.
Potential for cost overruns if scope is not well-defined and managed.
Limited transparency on how funds are utilized by the contractor.

Positive Signals

Award to an established transit authority (WMATA) suggests operational continuity.
Fixed-price contract type can provide cost certainty if scope is clear.
Delivery order structure allows for phased execution of services.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader transportation sector, specifically the transit and ground passenger sub-sector. This area involves significant public and private investment in moving people and goods. Benchmarking spending in this area is challenging due to the diverse nature of transit services, ranging from public transportation authorities to specialized logistics. The award to WMATA aligns with government efforts to support essential public transit infrastructure and operations.

Small Business Impact

This contract does not appear to involve small business set-asides, as it was awarded directly to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. There is no indication of subcontracting opportunities for small businesses within this specific award. The focus is on a large, established transit entity, rather than fostering small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this delivery order would typically fall under the Department of Transportation's contracting and program management offices. Accountability would be tied to the terms of the delivery order and the fixed-price contract type. Transparency is limited by the sole-source nature and the broad description of services. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Federal Transit Administration Grants
Department of Transportation Operating Assistance Programs
Public Transportation Infrastructure Projects

Risk Flags

Lack of competition
Vague service description
Potential for cost inefficiencies

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Transportation awarded $34.8 million to WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. IGF::OT::IGF - OTHER FUNCTIONS FY 17 WMATA_NEW DELIVERY ORDER_$7,040,450.00

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Transportation (Immediate Office of the Secretary of Transportation).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $34.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2017-01-31. End: 2018-01-23.

What specific 'other functions' are covered under this delivery order, and how do they align with the Department of Transportation's mission?

The provided data categorizes the contract under 'All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation' and lists the service as 'other functions.' This broad description lacks specificity, making it difficult to ascertain the exact nature of the services rendered. Typically, 'other functions' might encompass administrative support, specialized operational assistance, or maintenance activities not covered by standard service agreements. To fully understand the alignment with the Department of Transportation's mission, a more detailed breakdown of these 'other functions' would be necessary. Without this, it's presumed to support the broader goals of ensuring efficient and effective public transit operations within the Washington D.C. metropolitan area, potentially addressing unique operational needs of WMATA that fall outside routine service contracts.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar 'other functions' contracts with WMATA or other transit authorities?

Historical spending patterns for 'other functions' contracts with WMATA or similar transit authorities are not readily available in the provided data. This specific award is a delivery order under a larger contract vehicle, and its 'other functions' designation suggests it might be for non-standard services. To establish a historical spending pattern, one would need to analyze past contracts with WMATA and other transit entities, specifically looking for similar broad service categories or ad-hoc support agreements. The absence of detailed categorization for 'other functions' across multiple contracts makes direct comparison and trend analysis challenging. Generally, federal agencies aim to consolidate and define services clearly to manage costs and ensure value, so a recurring pattern of vaguely defined 'other functions' might indicate an area needing better contract management or service definition.

How does the $7.04 million award compare to the total annual budget or operational spending of WMATA?

The $7.04 million award represents a relatively small fraction of WMATA's overall budget and operational spending. WMATA's annual operating budget typically runs into the billions of dollars, covering extensive public transit services across the D.C. metropolitan area, including bus and rail operations, maintenance, and administration. For instance, in recent fiscal years, WMATA's operating budget has been in the range of $1.5 to $2 billion. Therefore, a $7.04 million delivery order, while significant in absolute terms, is a minor component of WMATA's total financial picture. This suggests the services procured are likely specialized or supplementary, rather than core operational funding, and their impact on WMATA's overall financial health would be limited.

What are the specific performance metrics or deliverables associated with this delivery order?

The provided data does not specify the performance metrics or deliverables associated with this $7.04 million delivery order. The contract is categorized under 'All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation' with the service description 'other functions.' This lack of detail makes it impossible to assess the contractor's performance or the successful completion of the contract's objectives. For a delivery order of this magnitude, especially one awarded on a sole-source basis, clear and measurable performance standards are crucial for ensuring accountability and value for taxpayer money. Without defined deliverables and metrics, oversight becomes more challenging, and it is difficult to determine if the intended outcomes were achieved.

Given the sole-source nature, what justification was provided by the Department of Transportation for not competing this requirement?

The provided data indicates the contract type was 'NOT COMPETED' and the description is 'All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation.' While the specific justification for the sole-source award is not detailed in the snippet, common reasons for sole-sourcing include unique capabilities of the contractor, urgent and compelling needs where competition is not feasible, or when only one responsible source exists. In this case, the award to WMATA, the regional transit authority, might have been justified by specific operational requirements or partnerships that the Department of Transportation deemed best met by WMATA directly. However, without the official justification document (e.g., a Justification and Approval - J&A), the precise rationale remains unclear, raising questions about whether competition was truly impossible or simply not pursued.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Transportation and Warehousing › Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation › All Other Transit and Ground Passenger Transportation

Product/Service Code: TRANSPORT, TRAVEL, RELOCATION › OTHER TRANSPORT, TRAVEL, RELOCAT SV

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: NOT COMPETED

Solicitation Procedures: ONLY ONE SOURCE

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 600 5TH ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC, 20001

Business Categories: U.S. Government Authorities, Category Business, Government, U.S. National Government, Not Designated a Small Business, U.S. Regional/State Government

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $34,803,102

Exercised Options: $34,803,102

Current Obligation: $34,803,102

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL ITEM

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DTOS5917D00505

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline