DoD's $33.7M Advertising Services Contract Awarded to Campbell-Ewald Company Under Full and Open Competition

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $33,752,203 ($33.8M)

Contractor: Campbell-Ewald Company

Awarding Agency: Department of Defense

Start Date: 2007-11-20

End Date: 2008-11-19

Contract Duration: 365 days

Daily Burn Rate: $92.5K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OPTION PERIOD 2 - ADVERTISING SERVICES

Place of Performance

Location: WARREN, MACOMB County, MICHIGAN, 48088

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Defense obligated $33.8 million to CAMPBELL-EWALD COMPANY for work described as: OPTION PERIOD 2 - ADVERTISING SERVICES Key points: 1. The contract represents a significant investment in advertising services for the Department of the Navy. 2. Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The firm fixed-price contract type indicates a defined cost for the services rendered. 4. The duration of the option period is one year, with a total value of $33.7 million. 5. The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 541810 points to the advertising agencies sector. 6. The contract was awarded in November 2007, with the option period ending in November 2008. 7. The base contract value was $9.2 million, with this option period significantly increasing the total obligation. 8. The contract is managed by the Department of Defense, specifically the Department of the Navy.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The total value of this option period is $33.7 million, which is substantial for advertising services. Without specific deliverables or performance metrics, a direct value-for-money assessment is challenging. However, the base contract value of $9.2 million suggests a phased approach to funding. Comparing this to other large-scale advertising contracts within the DoD or other federal agencies would provide better context for its relative cost-effectiveness. The firm fixed-price nature helps control costs, but the overall value depends heavily on the effectiveness and reach of the advertising campaigns executed.

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 a bid. The presence of two bids suggests a degree of competition, though the exact number of bidders can vary widely for advertising contracts. A higher number of bidders generally leads to more competitive pricing and a wider range of creative solutions. The fact that it was competed openly is a positive sign for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive offers.

Taxpayer Impact: Taxpayers benefit from a competitive bidding process that aims to secure the best value for advertising services. Full and open competition increases the likelihood of obtaining services at a fair market price, preventing potential overspending.

Public Impact

The primary beneficiaries are the Department of the Navy and potentially the broader Department of Defense, receiving advertising and marketing support. The services delivered are advertising campaigns, likely aimed at recruitment, public awareness, or promoting specific initiatives. The geographic impact is national, as defense-focused advertising typically targets a broad audience across the United States. Workforce implications could include support for military recruitment efforts and potentially the utilization of civilian marketing professionals.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of specific performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness and return on investment of the advertising spend.
The significant increase in value from the base contract to this option period warrants scrutiny to ensure the expanded scope is justified.
Limited information on the specific advertising channels and target audiences used, making it hard to gauge strategic alignment.

Positive Signals

Awarded through full and open competition, indicating a robust and fair bidding process.
The firm fixed-price contract type provides cost certainty for the government.
The contract is managed by a major federal agency (Department of Defense), suggesting established oversight processes.

Sector Analysis

The advertising industry is a dynamic sector encompassing agencies that create, plan, and place advertisements for clients. This contract falls under the 'Advertising Agencies' NAICS code (541810). Federal spending on advertising services supports various government functions, including recruitment, public information campaigns, and outreach. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other large federal advertising contracts, particularly those awarded by military branches or large civilian agencies like the Postal Service or HHS, to understand typical investment levels and pricing structures.

Small Business Impact

There is no indication from the provided data that this contract included specific small business set-asides or subcontracting requirements. The award to Campbell-Ewald Company, a large agency, suggests that small businesses were likely not the primary focus of this particular award. Further investigation into the subcontracting plan, if one existed, would be necessary to determine the extent of small business participation.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically reside with the contracting officers and program managers within the Department of the Navy. Accountability measures are inherent in the firm fixed-price contract structure, requiring the contractor to deliver specified services within the agreed budget. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS-NG, which provide public access to award details. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

Department of Defense Advertising and Public Affairs
Military Recruitment Advertising Contracts
Federal Government Marketing and Communications Services
General Services Administration (GSA) Schedule Contracts for Advertising

Risk Flags

Contract awarded in 2007, historical data may not reflect current market conditions or contractor performance.
Limited detail on performance metrics makes value assessment challenging.
Significant increase in value from base contract to option period warrants scrutiny.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Defense awarded $33.8 million to CAMPBELL-EWALD COMPANY. OPTION PERIOD 2 - ADVERTISING SERVICES

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is CAMPBELL-EWALD COMPANY.

Which agency awarded this contract?

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

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $33.8 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2007-11-20. End: 2008-11-19.

What was the specific scope of work for this $33.7 million option period, and what key performance indicators (KPIs) were used to measure success?

The provided data does not detail the specific scope of work for this option period beyond 'Advertising Services.' Similarly, no Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are listed. Typically, advertising contracts would outline objectives such as reach, frequency, engagement rates, lead generation, or brand awareness metrics. Without these specifics, it is impossible to definitively assess the effectiveness or value derived from the $33.7 million expenditure. A thorough review would require access to the contract's Statement of Work (SOW) and any associated performance management plans to understand what the contractor was expected to achieve and how their performance was evaluated.

How did Campbell-Ewald Company's bid compare to other potential bidders in terms of price and proposed strategy?

The data indicates that two bids were received for this contract. While we know the award was made to Campbell-Ewald Company, the specific pricing and strategic proposals of all bidders are not publicly available in this summary. To compare Campbell-Ewald's bid, one would need access to the bid tabulation and evaluation documents. Generally, a competitive bid process involves evaluating technical approaches, past performance, and price. The fact that Campbell-Ewald won suggests their proposal was deemed the most advantageous to the government, considering all evaluation factors. Without the details of the other bid(s), a direct comparison of price and strategy remains speculative.

What is the historical spending trend for advertising services by the Department of the Navy, and how does this $33.7 million award fit within that trend?

The provided data only includes information for this specific option period (2007-2008) valued at $33.7 million, and a base contract value of $9.2 million. To understand the historical spending trend, we would need to examine prior years' spending on similar advertising services by the Department of the Navy. This would involve querying federal procurement databases for contracts awarded under NAICS code 541810 or similar service categories over several fiscal years. This $33.7 million award represents a significant single-year expenditure for advertising services during that option period. Whether it is higher or lower than previous or subsequent years would depend on the broader historical context of Navy advertising budgets and procurement strategies.

What is Campbell-Ewald Company's track record with federal government contracts, particularly within the Department of Defense?

Campbell-Ewald Company has a history of receiving federal contracts. As evidenced by this award, they have secured significant advertising service contracts with the Department of Defense. A comprehensive review of their federal contracting history would involve searching databases like FPDS-NG or USAspending.gov for all contracts awarded to Campbell-Ewald across various agencies. This would reveal the total value of contracts held, the types of services provided, and their performance history. Their ability to win a $33.7 million option period contract suggests a proven capability and potentially a strong past performance record with the DoD, which is often a key evaluation factor in federal procurements.

Are there any identified risks associated with this contract, such as performance issues, cost overruns, or contractor viability?

The provided data does not explicitly list any risks associated with this contract. However, general risks inherent in large advertising contracts include potential performance deficiencies (e.g., campaigns not meeting objectives), scope creep leading to cost increases (though mitigated by firm fixed-price), and contractor viability issues. Given the contract's age (option period 2007-2008), the contractor's current status and financial health would be a relevant consideration if assessing ongoing risks. Without specific performance reports or audit findings, it's difficult to pinpoint concrete risks for this particular award. The 'fair' rating for value assessment suggests potential areas for concern or lack of clear upside.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services › Advertising, Public Relations, and Related Services › Advertising Agencies

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Solicitation ID: N0014005R0038

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: THE Interpublic Group of Companies Inc (UEI: 006985790)

Address: 30400 VAN DYKE AVE, WARREN, MI, 10

Business Categories: Category Business, Not Designated a Small Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $33,752,203

Exercised Options: $33,752,203

Current Obligation: $33,752,203

Contract Characteristics

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: N0014006D0005

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline