DOJ's $4.4M warehousing contract awarded to Schroeder Moving Systems for 6 years

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $4,444,303 ($4.4M)

Contractor: Schroeder Moving Systems of Milwaukee, Inc.

Awarding Agency: Department of Justice

Start Date: 2020-10-01

End Date: 2026-05-31

Contract Duration: 2,068 days

Daily Burn Rate: $2.1K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Number of Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE

Sector: Other

Official Description: TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE SEIZED PROPERTY

Place of Performance

Location: NEW BERLIN, WAUKESHA County, WISCONSIN, 53151

State: Wisconsin Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Justice obligated $4.4 million to SCHROEDER MOVING SYSTEMS OF MILWAUKEE, INC. for work described as: TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE SEIZED PROPERTY Key points: 1. Value for money appears reasonable given the 6-year duration and fixed-price nature. 2. Full and open competition suggests a competitive bidding process. 3. Potential risk indicators include the long contract duration and the specific nature of storing seized property. 4. Performance context is limited without specific service delivery metrics. 5. This contract fits within the General Warehousing and Storage sector. 6. The contract value is modest in the context of federal logistics spending.

Value Assessment

Rating: good

The contract's total value of $4.44 million over approximately 6.8 years (October 2020 to May 2026) averages to about $650,000 annually. This appears to be a fair price for specialized warehousing services, especially considering the need for secure storage of seized property. Benchmarking against similar contracts for general warehousing is difficult due to the unique nature of the goods stored, but the firm fixed-price structure provides cost certainty for the government.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under full and open competition, indicating that all responsible sources were permitted to submit a bid. The presence of two bidders suggests a degree of competition, though more bidders would typically lead to more robust price discovery. The government likely received competitive offers, but the exact number of proposals received beyond the awardee is not specified.

Taxpayer Impact: Full and open competition generally benefits taxpayers by encouraging lower prices and better service offerings through a competitive bidding process.

Public Impact

The Department of Justice, specifically the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), benefits from secure and reliable storage of seized property. Services include general warehousing and storage, crucial for evidence management and asset forfeiture. The geographic impact is focused on Wisconsin, where the contractor is located. Workforce implications are primarily within the contractor's organization, supporting logistics and warehousing roles.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Long contract duration (over 6 years) could lead to price escalation or reduced flexibility if needs change.
Specialized nature of storing seized property may require specific security protocols and handling expertise not detailed.
Limited transparency on the number of proposals received beyond the awardee.

Positive Signals

Firm fixed-price contract provides cost certainty for the government.
Awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive process.
Contractor is based in Wisconsin, potentially supporting regional ATF operations.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the General Warehousing and Storage industry (NAICS 493110), a segment of the broader logistics and transportation sector. The market for warehousing services is substantial, driven by e-commerce and supply chain needs. Federal agencies often contract for warehousing to manage assets, evidence, and supplies. Comparable spending benchmarks are difficult to establish precisely due to the specialized nature of storing seized property, but general warehousing costs vary significantly by location and service level.

Small Business Impact

The contract was not awarded as a small business set-aside, and there is no indication of specific subcontracting requirements for small businesses. This suggests that the primary award went to a larger entity or that small business participation was not a specific focus of this procurement. Further analysis would be needed to determine if small businesses are involved in the supply chain or subcontracting opportunities.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight is likely managed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acquisition and Property Management Division within the Department of Justice. Accountability measures are embedded in the firm fixed-price contract terms, requiring delivery of specified services. Transparency is moderate, with basic contract details available, but specific performance metrics and oversight reports are not publicly detailed.

Related Government Programs

Federal Asset Forfeiture Program
Law Enforcement Evidence Storage
Government Logistics and Warehousing Services
Department of Justice Contracts

Risk Flags

Long contract duration
Specialized storage requirements (seized property)
Limited number of bidders received (2)

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Justice awarded $4.4 million to SCHROEDER MOVING SYSTEMS OF MILWAUKEE, INC.. TRANSPORTATION, STORAGE SEIZED PROPERTY

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is SCHROEDER MOVING SYSTEMS OF MILWAUKEE, INC..

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Justice (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Acquisition and Property Management Division).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $4.4 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2020-10-01. End: 2026-05-31.

What is the track record of Schroeder Moving Systems of Milwaukee, Inc. with federal contracts?

Information on Schroeder Moving Systems of Milwaukee, Inc.'s specific track record with federal contracts is not detailed in the provided data. A comprehensive review would require searching federal procurement databases (like SAM.gov or FPDS) for past awards, performance evaluations (e.g., Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System - CPARS), and any history of disputes or contract modifications. Understanding their past performance, especially in handling sensitive or seized property, would provide crucial context for assessing the risk and value of this current contract. Without this historical data, the assessment relies more heavily on the contract terms and the competitive process.

How does the annual cost of this contract compare to market rates for similar warehousing services?

The annual cost for this contract averages approximately $650,000 ($4.44M / ~6.8 years). Benchmarking this against market rates for general warehousing is challenging due to the specialized nature of storing seized property, which may involve higher security, handling, and chain-of-custody requirements than standard goods. For typical commercial warehousing, rates vary widely by location, facility type, and services. However, for a government contract of this duration and scope, the price appears within a reasonable range, especially given the firm fixed-price structure which caps government expenditure. A more precise comparison would require detailed analysis of specific service requirements and regional market data for secure storage.

What are the primary risks associated with a long-term contract for storing seized property?

The primary risks associated with a long-term contract for storing seized property include: 1) **Obsolescence/Changing Needs:** The nature or volume of seized property may change over the contract's 6-year duration, potentially making the current storage solution less optimal or requiring costly modifications. 2) **Contractor Performance Degradation:** Over a long period, a contractor's service quality could decline, or key personnel might leave, impacting security and accountability. 3) **Price Inflexibility:** A fixed-price contract might not adequately account for unforeseen inflation or market shifts in storage costs, potentially leading to the government overpaying if market rates decrease, or the contractor seeking modifications if costs rise significantly. 4) **Security Breaches:** The long-term nature increases the window of opportunity for security lapses or breaches, which could compromise sensitive evidence or assets.

How effective is full and open competition in ensuring value for money in specialized storage contracts?

Full and open competition is generally the most effective mechanism for ensuring value for money, even in specialized storage contracts. It allows a wide range of potential providers to submit bids, fostering price competition and encouraging innovation. For specialized services like storing seized property, the challenge lies in defining the requirements clearly enough to attract qualified bidders while ensuring the competition is meaningful. If only a few firms possess the necessary security clearances, infrastructure, or expertise, the competition might be limited in practice, even if the solicitation was open. The fact that two bids were received suggests some level of competition, but the government should ensure the solicitation was structured to maximize participation from qualified entities to truly leverage competition for optimal value.

What is the historical spending pattern for similar warehousing services by the ATF or DOJ?

Historical spending patterns for similar warehousing services by the ATF or DOJ are not provided in the current data. To assess this, one would need to analyze past contracts for warehousing, storage, and logistics services awarded by these agencies over several fiscal years. Key metrics to examine would include the number of contracts, average contract values, average durations, types of services procured (e.g., general storage, evidence management, cold storage), and the competitive landscape (e.g., sole-source vs. competed). Understanding historical spending can reveal trends, identify potential cost savings, and highlight reliance on specific contractors or contract types, providing context for the current $4.44 million award.

Industry Classification

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

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

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 2

Pricing Type: FIRM FIXED PRICE (J)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Address: 15700 W LINCOLN AVE, NEW BERLIN, WI, 53151

Business Categories: Category Business, Corporate Entity Not Tax Exempt, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Special Designations, Subchapter S Corporation, U.S.-Owned Business

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $4,449,907

Exercised Options: $4,449,907

Current Obligation: $4,444,303

Actual Outlays: $4,041,347

Contract Characteristics

Commercial Item: COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS/SERVICES

Cost or Pricing Data: NO

Timeline