Agriculture's $2.2M Forest Service contract for marking services awarded to King Matthew R

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $22,044 ($22.0K)

Contractor: King Matthew R

Awarding Agency: Department of Agriculture

Start Date: 2026-04-03

End Date: 2026-11-30

Contract Duration: 241 days

Daily Burn Rate: $91/day

Competition Type: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Number of Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: OTF COON SSCC KANGAROO MARKING CONTRACT

Place of Performance

Location: IRONWOOD, GOGEBIC County, MICHIGAN, 49938

State: Michigan Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Agriculture obligated $22,044 to KING MATTHEW R for work described as: OTF COON SSCC KANGAROO MARKING CONTRACT Key points: 1. Contract awarded under Simplified Acquisition Procedures (SAP), suggesting a focus on smaller value procurements. 2. The contract is for marking services, a critical component of forest management and inventory. 3. Firm Fixed Price contract type indicates predictable costs for the government. 4. Performance period spans 241 days, suggesting a focused, short-term need. 5. The contract is not set aside for small businesses, potentially limiting opportunities for smaller firms. 6. Awarded to King Matthew R., a single entity, raising questions about competition. 7. Geographic focus on Michigan (MI) indicates a specific regional need for these services.

Value Assessment

Rating: questionable

The contract value of $2.2 million for 241 days of service appears substantial for marking activities. Without specific details on the scope of work, it's difficult to benchmark against similar contracts. The firm fixed-price nature provides cost certainty, but the overall value proposition requires further scrutiny regarding the quantity and complexity of the marking tasks to be performed.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: unknown

The data indicates the contract was 'COMPETED UNDER SAP' (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), which typically involves a less formal competition process than full and open competition. The number of bidders is not specified, but the award to a single entity, King Matthew R., suggests that either competition was limited or the evaluation process favored this specific offeror. Further details on the solicitation and bidding process are needed to fully assess the competitive landscape.

Taxpayer Impact: The limited information on competition under SAP makes it difficult to definitively assess the impact on taxpayers. If competition was indeed limited, it could potentially lead to higher prices than a more robustly competed contract. However, SAP is designed for efficiency in acquiring goods and services below certain thresholds, balancing cost and speed.

Public Impact

The Forest Service benefits from this contract by acquiring essential services for forest management. This contract supports the accurate identification and inventory of forest resources in Michigan. The services delivered are crucial for sustainable forestry practices and resource planning. The geographic impact is concentrated within the state of Michigan, addressing specific regional needs.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Lack of transparency regarding the competitive process under SAP.
Potential for higher costs if competition was not robust.
Absence of small business set-aside could limit broader economic participation.

Positive Signals

Firm Fixed Price contract provides cost predictability.
Clear performance period (241 days) allows for focused execution.
Award to a specific entity suggests a potentially tailored solution.

Sector Analysis

The contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically supporting natural resource management. The Forest Service, a key agency in this domain, utilizes such contracts for critical operational needs. Benchmarking this specific contract's value is challenging without detailed scope, but it represents a segment of federal spending dedicated to environmental stewardship and land management.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, nor does it explicitly mention subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This indicates that the primary award went to a non-small business or an entity not specifically designated for small business participation. The impact on the small business ecosystem is likely minimal unless the prime contractor voluntarily engages small businesses for subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight for this contract would typically fall under the Forest Service's contracting officers and program managers. The firm fixed-price nature simplifies some aspects of financial oversight. Transparency regarding the specific performance metrics and deliverables would be key to assessing accountability. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply in cases of fraud, waste, or abuse.

Related Government Programs

Forest Management Services
Natural Resource Inventory Contracts
Environmental Consulting Services
Federal Forestry Programs
State and Private Forestry Grants

Risk Flags

Limited Competition Potential
Value for Money Uncertainty
Lack of Small Business Inclusion

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Agriculture awarded $22,044 to KING MATTHEW R. OTF COON SSCC KANGAROO MARKING CONTRACT

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is KING MATTHEW R.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Agriculture (Forest Service).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $22,044.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2026-04-03. End: 2026-11-30.

What specific marking services are included in this $2.2 million contract?

The provided data does not detail the specific marking services. Typically, these could include timber marking for sales, inventory, or silvicultural treatments, boundary marking, or marking for pest and disease surveys. The scope would dictate the type of marking tools, personnel qualifications, and duration required. A comprehensive understanding of the scope is essential to evaluate the contract's value and appropriateness for the awarded amount and timeframe.

How does the $2.2 million value compare to similar Forest Service marking contracts?

Benchmarking this $2.2 million contract against similar Forest Service marking contracts is challenging without more specific data on the scope, duration, and geographic area covered. Contracts for timber marking can vary significantly based on the volume of timber, the complexity of the forest stand, and the specific marking system used (e.g., paint, tags, ribbons). The 241-day performance period suggests a significant undertaking, but without comparative data on unit costs (e.g., cost per acre marked, cost per tree marked), a direct value comparison is difficult.

What are the potential risks associated with a single award for this contract?

A single award, even if competed under SAP, carries potential risks. These include the possibility of suboptimal pricing due to limited competition, reliance on a single contractor's performance which could lead to delays or quality issues if they underperform, and a lack of innovative solutions that might emerge from a broader competitive field. If the contractor faces financial difficulties or operational challenges, the Forest Service may have limited alternatives for continuity of services.

What is the historical spending pattern for marking services by the Forest Service?

Historical spending patterns for Forest Service marking services are not detailed in the provided data. However, the Forest Service consistently allocates funds for forest inventory, management, and timber sales, which often involve marking activities. Spending can fluctuate based on appropriations, program priorities, and the lifecycle of forest management plans. Analyzing past spending would require access to historical contract databases and budget allocations for similar services over several fiscal years.

What is the track record of King Matthew R. in performing federal contracts, particularly for the Forest Service?

The provided data does not include information on the track record of King Matthew R. To assess their suitability, one would need to review their past performance on federal contracts, including on-time delivery, quality of work, and adherence to contract terms. Information from sources like the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) or contractor performance assessment reports (CPARS) would be necessary to evaluate their past performance history with the Forest Service or other agencies.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting › Support Activities for Forestry › Support Activities for Forestry

Product/Service Code: NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT › NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVERVAT SVCS

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: COMPETED UNDER SAP

Solicitation Procedures: SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION

Solicitation ID: 12363N26Q4076

Offers Received: 6

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 1095 SPRINGFIELD DR, DE PERE, WI, 54115

Business Categories: Category Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Sole Proprietorship, Special Designations, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $22,044

Exercised Options: $22,044

Current Obligation: $22,044

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: 12363N24A4005

IDV Type: BPA

Timeline